Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Dragon Age: The Veilguard	New	Sariel Xilo (t)	18 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Sariel Xilo (t)	8 hours
Autism	New	Oolong (t)	3 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Oolong (t)	2 days, 3 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	New	Kautilyapundit (t)	2 days, 7 hours	None	n/a	Kautilyapundit (t)	2 days, 7 hours
Kamaria Ahir	New	Nlkyair012 (t)	17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Nlkyair012 (t)	8 hours
Old Government House, Parramatta	In Progress	Itchycoocoo (t)	6 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 11:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Martin Heidegger

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by VeryRarelyStable on 01:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Martin Heidegger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VeryRarelyStable (talk · contribs)
• Sbelknap (talk · contribs)
• Snowded (talk · contribs)
• Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)
• Martinevans123 (talk · contribs)
• Epinoia (talk · contribs)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content issues:

• There is a live scholarly debate as to how much Heidegger's Nazism influenced his philosophy. At present his Nazism isn't getting much attention, which we (Sbelknap and I) think favours one side of the debate by default.
• Heidegger is notorious for his obscure writing; again we believe this is downplayed on the page as it is.
• The sections explaining Heidegger's philosophy do not meet Wikipedia's standards of legibility.

Wikipedia policy issues that have arisen:

• Each time anyone alters the balance of the existing page on these issues, they are reverted and told to get consensus first. Is this appropriate?
• We have presented multiple secondary sources and some tertiary sources for our points of view. All of them have been rejected as not good enough. Lately we're being told that only tertiary sources are acceptable.
• Our opponents do not engage with our counter-arguments but merely tell us that we are wrong.
• When we summarize the information in our sources we are told they don't represent the opinions of the writers; when we quote them directly we are told that direct quotes are inappropriate.

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

• Talk:Martin Heidegger
• Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 7
• Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 6

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please give guidance on the policy issues outlined above: are we "breaching consensus" or are our opponents enforcing a pseudo-consensus? Are the sources we have consulted inadequate or poorly summarized?

—Note: I will be away from the internet over New Year for nearly a week, starting from tomorrow. Letting other parties know now so that you know I'm not refusing to participate in the discussion. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please advise as to whether the Martin Heidegger article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism ought to be merged. It would be very helpful if editors with experience on biographies of other Nazi philosophers/pedagogues could opine here. These would include:

• Alfred Baeumler
• Alfred Rosenberg
• Ernst Krieck
• Herman Schmalenbach
• Carl Schmitt

Sbelknap (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sbelknap

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

•There is a serious problem with POV, where some editors remove material that casts Heidegger in a negative light. This ought be a biography not a hagiography. Instead, this biography has been split into one article about Martin Heidegger the Good and a separate article Martin Heidegger the Terrible. These two articles ought to be merged into a single article, as this would assist the reader seeking information about Heidegger. The splitting off of Martin Heidegger and Nazism into a separate article is the phenomenon that gets to the heart of the problem.

•Some philosophers and scholars (particularly the analytically-oriented) hold that Heidegger's philosophy is mere wordplay, or is so obscure as to be incomprehensible, or is nonsensical. These critiques ought to be addressed in a new section, rather than in the fragmentary fashion seen in the current article.

•There is substantial recent scholarship about Heidegger's Nazism and anti-semitism that is not given due weight in the current Martin Heidegger article. Attempts to correct this deficiency are reverted or edited away. There is a long-standing history of Heidegger apologism, going back to the French existentialists. The availability of Heidegger's Black Notebooks and of the correspondence between the Heidegger brothers, Martin and Fritz, has made it clear that Heidegger's Nazism was not a passing fancy related to his rectorship, but instead was an essential part of his world view. There also is scholarship that finds Nazism and anti-semitism to be at the core of Heidegger's philosophy. Thus, these several schools of thought ought be given due weight.

•Heidegger's romantic and sexual relationship with Hannah Arendt contributes to his notability, though less so than his philosophy or his Nazism/anti-semitism. This deserves its own section in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Snowded

Per the discussion below, I am prepared to participate and will state a position of other editors agree to do the same -----Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I only intend to participate here if, at minimum, a majority of the editors listed decide to participate. Otherwise I will not bother. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't have a problem with the arguments of the other side, except that I think that the proper article for their edits is Martin Heidegger and Nazism instead of Martin Heidegger. So, they seek to edit the wrong article. Oh, yeah, I got bored by being called a Heidegger apologist. As for his philosophy being "nonsense", analytic philosophers will say that about any "continental" philosophy, except perhaps Aristotle.

Only two persons understand my book Science of Logic: me and my dear God. After I die there will be only one person left to understand it.

— G.W.F. Hegel

Quoted from memory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

As per User:Epinoia below, who has summed it up very well. I would add that there has also been far too much debate over what should appear in the lead section, to the detriment of fixing what's in the main body. The lead section is supposed to simply summarize what's in the entire article, which should be in good shape first. Heidegger was notable for being a philosopher, not for being a Nazi. His supposed anti-Semitism is at odds with his relationship with Hannah Arendt. I also think the proposed merging of the main article with Martin Heidegger and Nazism would be a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Epinoia

There has been a concerted effort on the part of two editors to characterize Heidegger's philosophy as nonsense and to maximize his Nazi associations and present his work as not philosophy but hate speech. These are extreme positions not in keeping with a neutral point of view and are based on minor sources and fringe sources, such as Faye, and not on mainstream academic scholarship. Most reliable sources agree that "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), so his work is demonstrably not nonsense. Heidegger's Nazism is well represented as it is noted in the lead and in the article sections "Heidegger and the Nazi Party" and "The Farías debate" as well as in the content fork article "Martin Heidegger and Nazism". - Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Please refrain from back and forth discussion at this time

Volunteer comment – Given that the primary request here is for someone to assess the consensus of the existing discussion, you may want to list this at WP:Requests for closure instead of here. signed, Rosguill talk 09:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC) While an assessment of the consensus of the existing discussion would be helpful, we need still more a determination on what constitutes a "consensus" – we're being told that, since we came along later and changed the page from what it was before, we're "breaching consensus". —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC) While implicit consensuses can be formed purely through editing the page, the kind of lasting consensus that would justify reverting edits for breaching consensus is only going to be formed through talk page discussion. If the most recent discussion does not display a clear consensus, then either having an uninvolved editor close the discussion and determine its outcome, or convening an RfC to attract other editors to the discussion and hopefully result in a clearer consensus, are two natural next steps to take. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC) We've had other editors come in from outside and comment. They found the same thing we have – that the party opposed to us refuse to engage with their arguments and continue to revert our edits in the name of consensus. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC) From looking through the archived discussions, I see two camps of editors, roughly equal in number, that either want to include more discussion of Heidegger's Nazi affiliations in the lead, or that want to keep the status quo. None of these discussions resulted in a clear consensus for adding more information about Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, so for the time being the defenders of the status quo are correct that the pre-existing consensus stands. Both sides have made numerous arguments, and essentially seem to be going in circles in later discussions. While no one appears to have been persuaded away from their original positions, it doesn't appear that this is due to people not understanding each other's arguments, nor does it appear to be due to people failing to argue over the correct issues that are central to the discussion. Thus, at this time my assessment is that if editors who want to change the status quo want to pursue their case further, an RfC where everyone briefly restates their strongest argument and allows for outside editors to weigh in is the best way to achieve a consensus. I am skeptical that DRN will be of much use, as it is most useful in cases where there are either so many issues being discussed at once that people lose track of which arguments need to be made, or in cases where one or more parties is having difficulty understanding the other side's arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I'm less sure on the RfC route. If you take a look at the section OK its time to talk and the first question I made an attempt to deal with the problem in smaller units. The first and easiest was if the primary notability of Heidegger was as a philosopher or not. I thought this would be simple and we could then look at if his membership of the Nazi party was treated proportionally with due attention to weight, then onto how to deal with the current controversy over the degree to which his philosophy was influenced by anti-Semitism and so on. As with every other discussion we ended up stalled with five editors (Tgeorgescu, Epinoia, MartinEvants, Freeknowledgecreator and myself) pointing out that all identified Third-party sources (other physical and online encyclopedias)devote maybe one paragraph to the Nazi Party membership in several pages. In contrast, the other two editors arguing that it was equally valid to use selective quotations from primary sources to determine the question. To that we can note: seven involved editors is a lot for a philosophy article so a more or less continuous majority of five to two is significant and is a consensus of those five editors the majority edit over multiple philosophy articles while the two are more or less SPAs on a mission to right great wrongs despite the fact that no one disagrees that he was a member of the Nazi Party and anti-Semitic we get continuous personal attacks and innuendo suggesting some type of conspiracy to hide this. This doesn't help we can never move on because our two minority editors will never accept a consensus so the article is not developing with the sort of open discussion we need there is a separate article on Heidegger as a Nazi which deals with that subject. This article is about Heidegger the founder of existentialism and per ALL Third-Party sources identified to date one of the major figures in modern philosophy if not of all time. This wikipedia article plays more emphasis on the Nazi issue that any of the third party sources we have discovered todate. So I am not clear that an RfC could be formulated or a result would be accepted. I think, if we are to avoid ANI, that we need some mediation of the process to agree on a way forward, or at a minimum for formulating maybe two or three RfCs from a neutral perspective. I will say, from well over a decade of editing many Philosophy articles that RfCs do not attract significant numbers of other editors. Sbelknap and VeryRarelyStable are knowledgeable editors with a particular perspective on this subject, but unless there is some mediation of process and agreement on who to resolve disputes this is going now where and while a few RfCs might be a part of the solution they are not the solution -----Snowded TALK 06:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I see your case. If enough parties are interested in participating in this discussion, I am willing to moderate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks I'll encourge the others to accept - and congratulations on aquiring the mop :-)-----Snowded TALK 07:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I need hardly point out we have a different perspective. We feel the question "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher or a Nazi?" is a false binary. We feel that, given the debate in present scholarship, "Both" is the most appropriate option. When we responded to the "Philosopher or Nazi?" question with "Why not both?" the reply was "Look, can we just agree the answer is 'Philosopher' and move on to the next point?" Speaking for myself, this felt like an attempt to railroad the discussion to a predetermined conclusion. A point of contention for some time was a quote in the article lede which to us appeared to be unbalanced. It described Heidegger as an "important" philosopher, but was excerpted from a sentence describing him as both "important" and "controversial"; we believed the quote should include both. Edits to that end were repeatedly reverted – until another editor, new to the page, changed it to include the fuller sentence but also at the same time made the reference to Heidegger's Nazism in the lede much less direct. That inclusion of the full quote was suddenly acceptable, while attempts to restore the direct statement about Heidegger's Nazism (which we had agreed on some months before) were now repeatedly reverted. We find it difficult to explain this change of tack except on the hypothesis that someone has an agenda to place a sinking lid on the notability of Heidegger's Nazism. It is not the only edit that is easiest to explain on that hypothesis, but it is the one that is hardest to explain on any other hypothesis. This is the "innuendo suggesting some type of conspiracy" that Sbelknap refers to. I have let pass content decisions of greater import that I disagreed with on other articles. Indeed, it so happens that the current lede does have the direct statement of Heidegger's Nazism. What concerns me is that it appears, based on the Talk discussion and the edit history, that a couple of editors here have discovered a simple strategy to keep the article the way they want it: revert edits, repeat assertions in the Talk page, and prevent a consensus from forming at any other position. I therefore fear that once we have rein to edit again, that direct statement may soon disappear. I say "a couple of editors". One editor in particular does most of the reverting. One other takes charge of the Talk discussions when these issues are raised and repeats the same points at us. A third argues earnestly that Heidegger was not in fact a Nazi. The remaining two of the five that I have listed here just pitch in at times to support them. (When the debate shifts from Nazism to whether the philosophical sections need to be made more readable, for the most part the same parties form, but Epinoia in particular has been more sympathetic to us on that issue and helped out with untangling some of the dense prose. Still, we get the same editor reverting most of our edits. The objections we've been given to making these sections readable tend to waver between "It's already readable" and "It's Heidegger, it can't be made readable". On this issue I have no problem with the content of the sections at all, except that I can't make head or tail of what that content actually is.) We have had a couple of editors – Chumchum7 and TonyClarke – come by and try and help us sort things out. TonyClarke basically suggested what our side already wants: that the article should reflect the controversy in Heidegger scholarship. Chumchum7 tried to help us unknot the comprehensibility issue, pointed out that the lede should mention any notable controversies, and found the same frustration we were finding with the person who kept reverting things. There have also been a few other editors over time who have made edits, had them reverted, and disappeared again. At this point the article, and the lede in particular, has been pushed and pulled back and forth so much that it no longer makes very much sense. That's why I don't think just letting things lie as they've fallen is going to be a viable option in the long term. I agree on this at least: we need some form of mediation. Let me mention again: I'm going to be away from the internet for about a week over New Year, and won't be able to reply here. Please don't take my silence as an indication that I'm not interested in reaching a resolution. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Please refrain from making back and forth arguments at this time. There is no need for any rebuttals just yet. Happy new year to all and we'll resume this in 2020 if enough of the involved editors wish to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 08:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC) I invited both TonyClarke and Chumchum7 to this -----Snowded TALK 08:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I have looked over this dispute and I see that User:Rosguill has already addressed it (although not yet marked the case as being discussed), but I will comment anyway. It appears that the focus of the discussion should be on formulating one or more Requests for Comment, because this seems to be a case where the opinions are sufficiently well-established and disparate that there isn't likely to be a compromise. If the purpose of the discussion is to formulate the RFC or RFCs clearly, then I offer my thanks and support to User:Rosguill, and think that I will take part in the matter as an editor. If anyone thinks that persuasion is likely to avoid the need for an RFC, then I wish that I could be that optimistic. Thank you, Rosguill. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC) My view is that there has to be a mediated pre-process before we get the RfCs or the whole sorry saga will just carry on repeating itself. At the moment we have the assertion that selections of primary sources have equal value with third-party sources such as other encyclopedias. The most recent attempt to isolate an issue (if the primary notability was as a philosopher) produced a unanimous conclusion from all third party sources that he was and five of the participating editors in agreement. Two refused to accept that consensus and move on to the next subject. The assertion of those two editors is that they represent wikipedia policy. Independent formulation of RfCs will help but there first needs to be clear criteria established/explained/agreed. Just look at the history here! -----Snowded TALK 06:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC) I have, by now, grown used to being misrepresented in this discussion, but for the benefit of outsiders let me reiterate a couple of things: We are asserting that secondary sources, not primary sources, are of similar value to tertiary sources. The "primary notability" dispute is not about "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher first and something else second, or as something else first and as a philosopher second?"; it's about "Is Heidegger's philosophy primarily notable as philosophy simpliciter, or is its alleged connection with his Nazi politics the primary aspect of its notability?" That is to say, "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher or as a Nazi philosopher?" Heidegger scholars themselves do not agree as to the above question; we read Wikipedia policy as therefore saying that the article should reflect the debate in scholarship rather than picking a side. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I will advise the two editors who want a discussion in order to change the consensus that the use of DRN as a way for a minority of editors to bludgeon a discussion is marginally permitted by Wikipedia policy but very unlikely to be effective. The most likely result is that it will not change anything, but will result in the one or two editors acquiring reputations for being combative. The next most likely result is that discussion will fail, and will go to WP:ANI, and one or more editors will be topic-banned. The third most likely result is that the article will be changed to reflect the viewpoint that had been the minority. If the two editors still want to proceed, there is a mediator ready to work on the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC) The suggestion to seek comment from other editors did not originate with those in the minority. We were repeatedly advised by some in the majority to seek such counsel. My understanding is that the desire for assistance from other editors is not limited to the minority. If you can help all of us improve this article, that would be great, and I would be appreciative of this.Sbelknap (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC) I concur. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC) What about other editors that have previously made contributions to the Martin Heidegger article, such as @Process2, @JonathanMarkOfVirginia, @Eitje01, @Jmg38, @PaulBommel, and others? Would it be reasonable to also invite them to this discussion? Sbelknap (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Sbelknap, DRN is a voluntary process, and other editors may participate if they wish. That having been said, things do get a bit unwieldy when many editors are involved, so if those editors have not been involved in the most recent dispute, I'm not sure it's useful to invite them at this time. My guess is that going through DRN will likely result in us still not having a consensus, but having a clearer idea of the core issues and arguments, such that an RfC can be easily drafted. Other editors who have edited the article in the past may find it more fruitful to join once the RfC is underway. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable, it is the new year and I see that you are back online. Are you ready for this DRN process to begin? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought it had already begun. I haven't been involved in a DRN process before, I thought this was it. Yes, I'm ready. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) First statement by moderator

Ok, in that case I think that we're ready to begin. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from making any edits to Martin Heidegger that relate to the issues at hand while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior.

Sbelknap, Snowded, Freeknowledgecreator, Tgeorgescu, Epinoia, Martinevans123 VeryRarelyStable, could each participant please state below, in one paragraph or less, what they want changed in the article or the specific changes to the article that they oppose, as well as a brief justification? If your position does not significantly differ from a position that someone else has already written in their first statement, please just state that. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) First statements by participants

• Martin Heidegger is notable for being a philosopher AND for being a Nazi. There is a large and growing body of high-quality secondary sources that rely on Heidegger's Schwarze Hefte and correspondence between Martin Heidegger and his brother Fritz that bear on Heidegger's Nazism and evidence that his Nazism influenced his philosophy. Currently, the Heidegger biography in wikipedia has been split into two articles, Martin Heidegger and Martin Heidegger and Nazism. This split into two separate articles is emblematic of the problem, as the edit history for the Martin Heidegger articles shows a concerted effort to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. My contention, which is supported by extensive published scholarly works, is that Heidegger's notability is due to BOTH his philosophy AND his Nazism. The problem would be best resolved (in my view) by merging these two articles into one, by updating content in the new article to reflect secondary sources that describe the relation between his Nazism and his philosophy, and by emphasizing that all editors respect the guidelines and rules that govern wikipedia editing. Sbelknap (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• All the reliable third party sources (encyclopedias etc.) I have researched acknowledge that Heidegger was a Nazi, generally in one paragraph, with many many paragraphs talking about him as the founder of existentialism. The balance of the current article places greater emphasis on his Nazism than those sources but I don't advocate changing that aspect. However the attempts to emphasis it and give it equal status I oppose and also the merging of the articles. The third-party sources also say that his Nazism arose from his dislike of Industrialism in the US and Soviet Union; we do need to add in that dislike as that is sourced and important. There is a group of writers who feel that his Philosophy was influenced by antisemitism. That is a view we should report (no one has opposed doing that) but it is by no means a universal view and is opposed so we can't endorse it with Wikipedia's voice. He was an incompetent Nazi and if he hadn't been the founder of existentialism no one would know who he was and he would not have a Wikipedia page. We also need respect for Wikipedia process, if five editors agree on something against two, then the two should accept it or call an RfC not persist inthe argument. The personal attacks and innuendo have got to stop although that might be a separate matter for ANI -----Snowded ^TALK 06:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I do not oppose the edits of the other party, I just think that the proper article for their edits is Martin Heidegger and Nazism. An article should not be exceedingly long, and exceedingly long articles have to be split. The mentioned article exists, and the topic is WP:N, according to WP:RS. But there is no Adolf Eichmann and Nazism, since Eichmann is only notable due to being a Nazi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• It obviously is not true that "Heidegger was notable for being a Nazi". That is a nonsensical statement, given that many, many Nazis are of course totally obscure individuals with no claim to being important historical figures. As such, nobody is notable simply for having been a Nazi. Oppose any edits made on the basis of the false suggestion that Heidegger was notable for being a Nazi. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have added myself to the list of participants. I think that the current lede section is satisfactory in that it deals first with Heidegger's role as a prominent Continental philosopher and secondarily with his Nazism. I agree that there should be a separate article on his Nazism, because that is distinct from his role as a philosopher. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse Sbelknap's suggestions, including merging the two articles. If that is deemed unsuitable then there needs to be more content in the present article detailing the debate concerning how much Heidegger's philosophy reflected his commitment to Nazism. Of course one side of the debate is the view that they are unrelated, and I would want to see fair representation of that side's arguments just as I would for the side that claims they are intimately connected. I just don't want that side to be presented as the winner by default. On the second head of disagreement – what Heidegger's philosophy actually means and how we can summarize it in language of an appropriate reading level – we obviously need a Heidegger expert's help interpreting it; unfortunately (as one finds with experts in any field) those who have tried to help so far underestimate the difficulty non-experts have with the technicalities that are familiar to them. At the very least, I would like the "incomprehensible" tags I put on the Philosophy sections to remain there until they really are readable to a non-expert; and when we non-experts try to reword parts of them and get the substance wrong, I would like some guidance asking the experts to rewrite those parts to be both correct and readable rather than reverting it to the allegedly correct but unreadable existing text. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Martin Heidegger is most notable as a philosopher as evidenced by the large number of Heidegger scholars listed in Category:Heidegger scholars, the number of prominent people he influenced (see article info box), and sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which states that he had "a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy." His influence would not have been so extensive if he were primarily a Nazi philosopher. This also contradicts the claim his work is nonsense, as no one writing nonsense would have such a wide influence. Other similarly controversial figures, such as Ezra Pound (a fascist and traitor), Gertrude Stein (worked for the Vichy government), E.E. Cummings (a racist), Allen Ginsberg (a pedophile), are all known primarily for their contributions in their respective fields; this same weighting applies to Heidegger. (WP:WEIGHT) Heidegger's Nazi affiliations are well covered in the article in the lead and the sections "Heidegger and the Nazi Party" and "The Farías debate". I oppose the merging of the content fork article "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" as it would make the main article too long. "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" is one of many content fork articles on Heidegger, such as Heideggerian terminology, Dasein, Thrownness, Being and Time, etc. Content forking is an acceptable, and often encouraged, way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. (WP:CFORK) There is controversy over how much Heidegger's Nazism influenced his work. As the controversy is ongoing, it should be noted in the article without taking sides or giving prominence to fringe views in keeping with a neutral point of view. - Epinoia (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

– New discussion.

Filed by Snooganssnoogans on 18:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)
• MikkelJSmith2 (talk · contribs)
• Selvydra (talk · contribs)
• MrX (talk · contribs)
• SashiRolls (talk · contribs)
• Chevvin (talk · contribs)
• Wrestlinglover (talk · contribs)
• Rmdsc (talk · contribs)
• SharabSalam (talk · contribs)
• Rafe87 (talk · contribs)
• Ryk72 (talk · contribs)
• Slywriter (talk · contribs)
• Ahunt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is very simple and revolves around Wikipedia policy: If newly added content has been challenged by multiple editors should it removed from the page until there is a consensus for the inclusion of the content? Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Other editors claim that newly added challenged content should be removed from the article until there is consensus for inclusion.

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

[[3]]

[[4]]

[[5]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We just need a clarification on how Wikipedia policy works.

Summary of dispute by MikkelJSmith2

I'll adapt some of what I wrote in Village Pump, due to the fact that it resumed the situation. I think part of the confusion comes from what I did. It wasn't due to bad intentions. After all, I've been answering complaints and trying to better the page. I've made some changes regarding the complaints (added other sources for one claim where an editor said it was WP:UNDUE) and added multiple reliable sources to the page.

To resume the situation, the page was reverted to before some changes were made since the changes in question were being talked about on the talk page. I did this because of what I understood about policy at the time, which I'm still not sure about since I've heard conflicting things now.

Anyway, to go into more detail, what I did was restore Selvydra's edit, which fixed some stuff but still had some objected content in it as well as some fixes that other users had made: adding more sources to meet WP:DUE, trimming, the use of different words per MOS and replacing said with opined in other cases. The problem I guess is that we never really came to a consensus on the objected content on the talk page. That's not to say that we were idle, we went over some complaints, 4 of them have been resolved, see here [6] and I've answered another complaint. I'm currently waiting for the answer regarding that one. And, we will hopefully move on from there.

However, in terms of some of the complaints, I need to mention that some objections went against the larger consensus at Wikipedia (i.e. the consensus from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Some editors disputed the use of Fox News (the RS, i.e reliable part of that network), Business Insider (an RS), and op-eds that fell within RSes. Another complaint was the use of Paste, which is currently undergoing a RfC on the noticeboard (I was waiting for an answer there before doing anything) and a Tweet from ABC News (I've responded to that complaint by adding the reliable ABC News source, but I haven't had a response from anyone regarding my fix). There are other complaints regarding sources that are WP:BIASED and aren't listed on Perennial sources, such as Current Affairs, but we never really came to a solution. I was of the opinion that we should attribute some of them.

So, I don't think any of the editors have bad intentions here, it's due to a difference in regards to understanding policy.

For more background information see this conversation on village pump [7].

Thank you for your time and help. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Selvydra

Context: This article underwent AfD early on, and it yielded no consensus. As a result, both sides ('delete' and 'keep') seem to be concerned that whichever side has priority (after 23 days) can stonewall the other's changes on that content, because consensuses may not be reached on the talk page, either.

Concerns: Due to this bleak onlook on achieving a satisfying consensus, 'keepers' worry that everything in the article that the deleters disagree with will be removed, never to be returned. Meanwhile (correct me if I'm wrong), 'deleters' have expressed concern that 'keepers' can stonewall them from changing what's wrong with the article.

Content & policy: I mostly agree with how MrX has summarized this below. Re: his 1. point: A significant amount of content has been removed by Snooganssnoogans and some others because they have found several biased sources as not RS (they're not listed as such in WP:RSPSOURCES), which resulted in WP:NPOV concerns being voiced (that, in left-media vs. mainstream media in the article, the former half is forward about its bias and is getting removed as not RS, leaving the latter half as the stronger voice in the article).

Correction to the main Dispute overview: In Snooganssnoogans' dispute overview, I find the following representation misleading (emphasis added): Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Rather, editors including myself have asserted that 23 days and the no-delete AfD should protect that content from deletion-until-consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Ultimately, I hope that the concerns of both sides can be alleviated somehow. The consensus dilemma shouldn't allow for either unfettered deletionism or inclusionism.

Summary of dispute by MrX

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

From my perspective, the dispute centers around a couple of questions:

1. Are the quality of some of the sources appropriate for an article about this subject?
2. Does content added to the article enjoy automatic WP:CONSENSUS because it was not substantially challenged for 23 days, or does WP:ONUS apply? In other words, is a removal of three-week-old content sufficient to be considered a revert of WP:EDITCONSENSUS ("Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.") or WP:SILENT ("Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement.")? More or less what Snooganssnoogans has summarized above. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SashiRolls

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't remember exactly where I was canvassed from for the AfD, but I'm pretty sure it was Snoog who brought me here. I agree people shouldn't get stressed out about things disappearing for a day or two or even (gasp!) a week... MrX & Snoog describe the AmPol rituals accurately, this is why I removed the 20K chunk of text once.

Let them slash. As the Clintons liked to say in Haiti, build back better.

Also, there is an open question about the CounterPunch entry on my TP, that is, it seems to me, not entirely unrelated to questions of wiki/media slant. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chevvin

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wrestlinglover

Issue I have first is the mischaracteration of the dispute when this is brought up. This isn't new material. This is material that has been around for weeks when in the history of this article is a very long time. This is material that has been discussed several times resulting in no consensus but all have already agreed on the material being there, in what manner it should be there. Now we have went to deletion entirely. Which I feel is an attempt at TE of sorts with the original editor that removed the material. The material is sourced with reliability under discussion for some of the material at stake. The main point of EDITCONSENSUS is that a consensus is established for the material to remove in the article is left undisturbed for a period of time. Once it is contested a discussion must occur with reasons the material should be released because immediately removal is a sign of edit warring that will occur between editors that wish have the material made. The third line of the policy lists that a new consensus for the editing of the old material is not established unless that removal is disputed. If it is disputed that new edit cannot remain and must be discussed. You can't establish a new consensus for the material to be removed unless it is undisputed. ONUS doesn't come into effect until after the material is being made because it is about inclusion of material that is under existing dispute. Not material at a new dispute. Believing otherwise would allow editors to randomly remove material on pages and disagree with its POV and hold the page hostage until a discussion is created to override their objection. This would be why improvement tags exist. To challenge existing material.--WillC 21:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rmdsc

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SharabSalam

• I dont know how am I involved in this and I am having some health problems and I dont have the ability to read what is going on in the talk page but I personally believe that newly added content may be removed iff there are legit objective arguments and consensus against the inclusion. But if the arguments are trouble and there is no clear consensus then we would have a problem with editors undermining the developing of articles by making some phoney arguments against the inclusion, in this case, we should include the newly added content.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rafe87

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ryk72

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

"Present" - Ryk72 ^talk 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slywriter

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It's my belief that this article serves as borderline propaganda and is not encyclopedic. Any attempt to change that is met with reversions and claims of silent consensus.

Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadlines. This article is an attempt to cover events as they happen and has no view towards the long term.

The article has become a collection of quotes that justify a position. These quotes are often non-RS/borderline RS, partisan media, or off the cuff remarks that are tied together, SYNTHESIS, to arrive at a conclusion.

Finally, if this article is to exist in its current state then every Presidential Candidates' supporters would be justified to do the same quote farming to frame an article positively or negatively about how the media portrays them.

Slywriter (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ahunt

Sorry, I have not edited the article or its talk page. Just gave one participant some general editing advice at User talk:Ahunt#Deletion, so really nothing I can contribute here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Note - As stated, this is a policy question and not a content dispute. If this is a policy question, ask it at Village pump (policy) or some other policy forum. If this is actually a request for a mediator for a dispute with 13 editors, it can be left here to see if someone is willing to moderate, but a Request for Comments might work better. Report disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is an underlying content dispute which is at an impasse because of the lack of clarity in the policy, and a lack of WP:DR experience of several editors. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of not a bureaucracy and that the article is at a legitimate impasse barring additional editors, I think mediation of any sort to provide clarity would be great. If mediation fails or the ultimate issue is policies themselves then those wider conversations should occur in the appropriate forums. Slywriter (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Only if all arguments are laid out neatly could we achieve some sort of resolution here. We have a wide issue of people having vague stances and seem to fall into IDONTLIKEIT territory.--WillC 21:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - I will state an opinion, which is only my opinion. I agree that the policy is not completely clear, but that a policy-based argument can be made to remove the content, and there is not a policy-based argument to keep the content pending discussion. Consensus is Wikipedia policy. So if there is consensus, we follow consensus. If there isn't consensus, the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is used, which is that the questioned material is reverted (left out) until after discussion. There are reasons to leave the material out, but not reasons to keep the material in. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)\
  • The problem with it is the consensus part. The policy suggests a consensus exists so the material is valid for inclusion if not disputed. Which would be the overriding consensus meaning a new one is needed to end the previous consensus from having overruling ground. If removal is undisputed then a new consensus is created per policy. If it is disputed, no new consensus has been reached.--WillC 21:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Reminder - Remember that American politics discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, what is that exactly? I'm unfamiliar with that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:MikkelJSmith - What is what? What is ARBAP2? (Click on it and read it.) ArbCom discretionary sanctions are rules permitting administrators to impose restrictions on editors who edit disruptively in areas subject to frequent disruption, or in areas requiring special caution. Some of the topic areas that are subject to special restrictions are areas that are subject to battleground editing because they are or have been real battlegrounds, such as Palestine and Israel and India and Pakistan. Another of them is American politics, even though that has not involved battles in the past 150 years, but it sometimes comes close to it. Basically, if you don't know much about ArbCom discretionary sanctions, you don't need to know much about them, because you can avoid having to learn about unpleasant rules by not being an unpleasant editor. If that is all you know about these rules, that is all that you need to know about these rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As for editing, I try my best to be a good editor. If I've done something wrong, it tends to usually be from ignorance or misunderstanding. Some intricacies of this site are sometimes hard. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'd think the policies for biographies of living persons also apply, since Mr. Sanders is clearly alive and the article is about him (even if it is not a biography.) Fcrary (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Fcrary - That is true. But the collateral damage from American politics goes beyond American politicians into subject matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor Selvydra (a single-purpose account who near-exclusively edits Bernie Sanders-related content) claims "that 23 days and the no-delete AfD should protect that content from deletion-until-consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS." However, the content in question was challenged by multiple editors in the AFD, as well as on the article talk page, from essentially the time it was added. The content has never ever for whatever short period time enjoyed a consensus. It has always been disputed. And that's also ignoring the fact that merely existing for 3 weeks =/= long-standing stable content that enjoys consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • And the afd had those discussions result in a no consensus. That discussion is dead. New discussion.--WillC 00:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure, given the accusations levied at me: I am a European who has followed US politics and particularly Sanders closely since 2015. I've have had this account for some time, but only more recently started editing some Sanders-related pages, because I had information to contribute (that I eventually did reach consensus with, after many hiccups due to my inexperience and the contentious topic). As for this topic – do I think he's suffered from media bias? I think it's obvious, given that the media would be going against their own financial incentives if they covered him fairly. AT&T, Comcast, Fox Corp. all have owners who stand to lose a lot of money if a left-leaning candidate such as Sanders is elected. And that is a big part of why I've largely been on the side of retaining content that details incidents of this bias. I'm concerned that some editors vehemently disagree with this premise and are trying to rules-lawyer this content off the site – mainly by decreeing all non-mainstream-media as non-RS and thus only leaving CNN to say that MSNBC isn't biased, and MSNBC to say WaPo isn't biased, etc...

Instead of unilateral large-scale removals (or indeed content dumps), can we work together to trim down parts that are WP:UNDUE, come to a mutual agreement on what is and isn't RS and see that the article as a whole represents both mainstream media and its detractors reasonably fairly? Selvydra (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem namely is between editors who want to include information that presents a bias and editors who want all such information removed and the article deleted regardless of the sources or the content. That is the problem.--WillC 08:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• New volunteer comment. The way Wikipedia policy works is that editors are expected to show good faith with an eye towards WP:Consensus. If editors don't do that, then things break down. @Wrestlinglover: You in particular need to calm things already. You're getting pretty worked up over this, and that only leads to negative feelings and resentment. If you truly would like to see your preferred version, then work with the folks you disagree with. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

MJL I've had my credentials questioned and my ability on this site as well while seeing excuses of IDONTLIKE and obvious examples of TE. I think my attitude is warranted. I unlike others involved in this, have focused solely on discussion and have less than 5 edits on the main article as such. Meanwhile, others involved have dozens and have shunned discussion infavor of wanting TNT. I don't see my attitude as having escalated this issue moreso than attempts to mischaracterize issues definitely had.--WillC 08:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Statuta Valachorum

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mikola22 on 12:49, 30 December 2019 (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 Statuta Valachorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sadko (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I put information in the article about Vlachs along with Serbs because in that area they are mentioned Vlachs in the books together with Serbs or without Serbs but with Uskoks, Hajduks etc(it is based on sources). And I deleted information that Vlachs are mostly Serbs because Croats are mentioned in that area and others who became Vlachs and this claim requires consensus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Statuta_Valachorum#Last_change_of_article_and_possible_controversial_edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikola22#Removing_sourced_content How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you can help because historical data, historians and books mentione Vlachs and others who are under the Statuta Valachorum. If data about Vlachs can not be entered and in the article there is information about the Serbs which are least mentioned there, I do not know which purpose is of existence this article with name Statuta Valachorum (Vlachs statute). What would happened if I start putting data which speak that half of Vlachs communitie are Croats(information from the 2019.) Summary of dispute by Sadkσ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven Some does not mean most. Thus "some Croats" does not contradict (and thus overturn) "mostly Serb". Also as far as I can tell from discussion all the sources mentioned by the OP talk about the situation in the 19thc (or latter), not about what the term Vlachs meant in the document that is the articles subject (well that seems to be what the OP said anyway). Frankly it does not help matters that the OP tends to post tracts of text that are rather difficult to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Statuta Valachorum discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment - There doesn't appear to have been extensive discussion on the talk page. Please try to convince other editors there before coming here. Additionally, given that the filing editor has generally failed to modify their position even when presented with strong policy-based arguments in previous discussions on this board (see this discussion in particular), I don't think that much good is likely to come from attempting to resolve this dispute here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Regarding White Croatia question thing is clear ([[8]]) and if I need to confirm that decision just say it. We must respect the opinion of the majority. As far as this case is concerned there will be no progress because one editor has this attitude I quote: "You are deleting other sources while putting new ones which go per your POV while watering down the issue (word Vlach had and has multiple meanings) and making a wast relativision. The idea is to delete any mention of Serbs, present it like they are some floating mass of Vlachs who were converted by the notorious Serbian Orthodox Church to become Serbs etc)." In that part of Croatia I do not know how many references mentione Serbs but when article is read I get impression that article is about Serbian statuts. In that part of Croatia there is information about mass migration of peoples(Croatian serfs) to Vlachs side(there are also mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Predavci etc) Catholics and Orthodox were also considered to be Vlachs there. In some books Serbs are not mentioned there. Name of the law is Statuta Valachorum and we in article read about Serbs. Someone earlier enter(edit) these claims in an article without consensus so it will be a big problem to correct it now, please help. Mikola22 (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2019 (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.

Jennifer Freyd

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jooojay on 06:44, 2 January 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 Jennifer Freyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jooojay (talk · contribs) Senor Crocodile (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is refreshing an old discussion from the talk page from 2014 - an old accusation of childhood sexual abuse by her father - with citations from mainstream sources including the Baltimore Sun News and Stanford University Magazine. And as a result of these accusations, her parents disputed Freyd's claims of sexual assault, and then co-founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation - which had a large membership (and may have closed in 2019?). The editor in question appears to be editing both WP articles with primary sources and engaging in edit warring. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jennifer Freyd How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Unclear how to proceed, the subject of the article's career was centered around childhood sexual abuse and it is published in mainstream sources, so it appears to be a non-controversial topic. The editor may have a COI or simply may be a new editor and not realize all of the mistakes made in their extensive edits? This article has a long history of COI edits however. Summary of dispute by Senor Crocodile Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am grateful to Joojay for educating me, as a new contributor, on my errors, which were well-intentioned but ultimately not constructive. At this point, I better understand Wikipedia policy in terms of what is “fair game” regarding sensitive/“controversial” content on a living person’s Wikipedia page. I better understand how to engage more constructively in collaborative editing on matters of dispute. Another contributor helpfully updated the False Memory Syndrome Foundation paragraph in a way that improves the accuracy of the content. I also added a notation about the dissolution of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as of Dec 31, 2019, citing a secondary source for this fact. I think that these collective contributions have made the Wikipedia page more useful, accurate, and easy to read. I appreciate the patience and help from more experienced contributors/editors in helping me learn how to be a better Wikipedia contributor. Happy new year Senor Crocodile (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Jennifer Freyd discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment – from reading Senor Crocodile's statement here, it is not clear that there is still a dispute to be resolved. I also see that another uninvolved editor has clarified policy matters on the talk page, so even if there is still a dispute I'm not sure that it's necessary or useful to hash it out here at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 2 January 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.

occupational stress

– New discussion.

Filed by Lightningstrikers on 04:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Occupational stress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lightningstrikers (talk · contribs)
• Iss246 (talk · contribs)
• CaroleHenson (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the opening paragraph of the article there is a large heavily weighted section on various professionals who are involved in the area of occupational stress for some reason and this adds nothing to the article's quality. Nothing has been summarized either as far as what is actually in the article. I have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It says the lead should summarize the contents and main points. I have suggested getting rid of the section because it adds nothing to the article and there is no discussion at all about professionals who deal with occupational stress. So I've asked why is this section included and have been met with no real policy response. After circular heated discussion resolution is now required to cool things down as I want to resolve this.

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

Talk:Occupational stress

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Cool things down and add guidance.

Summary of dispute by Iss246

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by CaroleHenson

I believe that the expressed issue is actually a minor one that I thought was best to take to WT:LEDE or the WP:Teahouse. There is a sentence about the extent or not occupational stress involves a number of disciplines. It may be that the sentence may have issues, but there have been a number of stated reasons for removing content from the Lede (not summarized in the Lede, not an international organization / viewpoint, questioned source, questioned meaning of the content from the source) and circling conversations (ask, answer given, ask again, etc.) meant we not only didn't get anywhere, but I think all parties became exhausted.

I think, though, this is really an ownership conflict between Iss246, who has contributed much of the article content for years -- and Lightningstrikers who has made edits, but not added much content, per page statistics. I am very uncertain and have tried to determine what exactly Lightningstrikers really wants. The focus on removing content - without getting into doing research to find sources to support content to add to the article or discuss why content should be removed makes consensus very difficult. Lightningstrikers ‎has been warned about making disruptive edits and removing or replacing cited content that they do not like by six or so users (as summarized here starting December 26, 2019, but seems to totally disregard.

An ANI issue was opened against Lightningstrikers, which is where I came in, but it seemed to be mostly a content dispute issue and/or a sockpuppet issue and administrators didn't address the issue. I think that if they continue the way that they are: wanting to delete content, not engaging or following advice for getting information elsewhere if they don't believe me, not providing sources for content addition or removal, and continuing to asks questions if they don't like the result doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Building an encyclopedia, but following some deep-seated objectives that are unclear to me.

I think that Lightningstrikers could benefit by finding a mentor, taking tutorials, or engaging with Teahouse or guideline talk pages to better navigate through Wikipedia editing, which is not always easy. It can be difficult. Absolutely.

It seems that mostly Iss246 has been worn down by the user and others who exhibited very similar behavior over a number of years. I think they could benefit, once constructive discussions may take place, from being open to compromise and work on consensus.

I am not sure what more you may need. If you want examples of attempts to communicate with Lightningstrikers, the best thing to do is to look at Talk:Occupational stress, but I am happy to get more detailed with specific diffs if that would help. Otherwise, I think it is better for Lightningstrikers to use other WP resources to get questions answered. I don't think they believe anything I have to say and has just become a migraine-producing enterprise that I would prefer not to be a part of.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate what user:CaroleHenson has written here. Iss246 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Instead of attacking me personally CaroleHenson how about work towards a solution. That is why I opened this here. Not to be further abused. You falsely stated the section of the lead in question was one sentence! It is hugely outweighing all other actual content in the article. Here it is,

"Although professionals in occupational medicine have been interested in occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury." According to Paul Spector, other subdisciplines within psychology have been relatively absent from research on occupational stress. Traditionally clinical psychology, counseling psychology, health psychology and industrial psychology have dealt with occupational stress at both the individual and organisational level. Other professions such as medicine and occupational hygiene also deal with occupational stress."

This is the issue I have and CaroleHenson and Iss246 completely ignored discussing.Lightningstrikers (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

occupational stress discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Regardless of what CaroleHenson states the section is very large and completely outweighs all other actual content in the article. How an experienced editor could be fighting to keep a section like this in the lead when it is not even discussed in the article itself is beyond me. My understanding is based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Are we not supposed to summarise the key points in the article? The large chunk in the lead (see occupational stress) for yourself is 4 long sentences about topics that are not even actually covered in the article itself. Not "one sentence" as CaroleHenson stated misleadingly. I'm here to resolve the issue based on what guidelines tell us. Lightningstrikers (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• This is news to me. I never heard of a concern about the entire section, that the section is really large, outweighs all other content in the article, that there was a fight to keep the "section", or that there was concern about not having a summary.

I never disagreed that about the purpose of the LEDE. See here and here. I continually said it's about being an intro AND to summarize article information. These conversations occurred when you wanted to remove a sentence.

Do you have thoughts about how to resolve the issues that you have raised here?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding the points you raised above in my statement section: This approach gets personal, I get that, but to really get to a resolution, it seems best to be forthcoming. It was the reason that I recommended that you reach out to someone at WP:LEDE or the teahouse to discuss your concerns and get advice / feedback from a disinterested party. Lots less drama that way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have a solution CaroleHenson. Get rid of this mess in the lead which is causing the problems and adhere to policy and guidelines instead of ignoring them as you told me to ignore policies and guidelines CaroleHenson. Sorry I won't ignore guidelines. It makes for a shit article doing so as is the case in the lead of the occupational stress article. There is no mention, let alone a summary, of each of the main points in the article. Instead for some strange reason you both want to keep the four very long sentences relating to professionals involved in the area. It is an international article. It is pointless continuing to argue over this. Again. There is no mention of the very long second paragraph of the lead in the article itself. Seems very fishy to me. I think there may be an agenda here particularly with Iss246. Also I'd really appreciate the two of you to stop attacking me and accusing me of being some other editor or some bullshit! Funny how you said CaroleHenson it was one sentence! And yes I certainly did bring up the undue weight issue with you CaroleHenson. Ridiculous saying I didn't when it's on the talk page. You were obviously not listening. Anyway we're here now. What do you think about getting rid of this section of the lead causing all the trouble if for no other reason that it is not mentioned at all in the article? Lightningstrikers (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers,

There is a lot here. I am going to address them one at a time, with a quote of what you posted:

Get rid of this mess in the lead which is causing the problems

There is no mention, let alone a summary, of each of the main points in the article.

What do you think about getting rid of this section of the lead causing all the trouble if for no other reason that it is not mentioned at all in the article?

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly. Are you offering to start a draft of the intro?

Instead for some strange reason you both want to keep the four very long sentences relating to professionals involved in the area.

Since this is the first time we are getting all your thoughts out about what you want done, I don't know how you can say that we are trying to keep an entire section.

and adhere to policy and guidelines instead of ignoring them as you told me to ignore policies and guidelines

There is no other way to say it. You are lying. I never said that you should ignore guidelines. I said you need to understand them better. Why would I recommend that you go to WT:LEDE a number of times if I was telling you to ignore them? Again, please see here and here.

Also I'd really appreciate the two of you to stop attacking me and accusing me of being some other editor or some bullshit!

Have I called out and warned you about disruptive editing and my frustration that we're not getting anywhere in conversations? Yes! Throwing out accusations, though, that I am making a personal attacks tells me that you don't understand the nature of what a personal attack and I find it very offensive that you would make such a claim. I have not called you names, used abusive language, etc.

Would you please read What is considered a personal attack on personal attacks and provide examples of how I am attacking you?

Please see Help:Diff for how to add a diff when you make a claim about what someone said.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And yes I certainly did bring up the undue weight issue with you CaroleHenson

Yes, you did bring up undue weight. But I told you I wasn't going to engage with you until you are willing to WP:LISTEN. I am exhausted by telling you the same thing over and over again. And, now you are lying about what I said. As I have said in my statement, since you are not listening to what I am saying... and are misconstruing here what I have said, I have no interest whatsoever to discuss the nature of guidelines with you. None. Zip. Zero. I have, though, given you resources to address the issues/questions. And, of course, we are here. If someone volunteers to take on this dispute, hopefully that will square away the discrepancies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Added link to a how-to for diffs.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

How about focusing on a solution CaroleHenson and listening to other editors CaroleHenson. The section is not discussed in the article at all! Policy and guidelines say that we need to summarise the main points. Not hard. Follow policy. Delete the section. If you want to keep it then why CaroleHenson? Why do you think we should keep this section? Why please? Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers It seems that the solution you are looking for involves summarizing article content.

Did you read my response

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly.

There's a big disconnect between my reply and your reaction. Again, are you interested in drafting content for that? –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did read your response. CaroleHenson why can't you answer the question about why you want this strange section in the article lead at all. Can you please answer that? Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• The last 24 hours have been difficult
  • There has been no traction in even discussing Lightningstrikers ideas about improving the lede and adding summary of article content. It has been mostly a recycling of the same questions here, article talk page, and to a lesser extent my and their talk pages.
  • Instead, there is focus on a couple of sentences they don't want like the CDC statement, and the info from Spector - now stated as a need to remove the entire section. I think that there may be possible improvements that could be made to improve/edit those statements -- but it seems that they would rather fight about it being there than trying to find sources and solutions to improve it.
  • They also said that it would be good to have a section on the professions involved in OS [9], but have not provided any sources, thoughts, etc. to move that along. Same with improving the article to have a more global / international view. We discussed use of CDC (they don't like it even though the CDC has worked on global health for 60 years) and when I asked for other organizations doing groundbreaking or international work on OS, they only came up with WHO. I started a list of potential articles with two sources, they ended up without anything else productive to say and got back into questioning why anything from the CDC should be in this article [10]
  • There is dispute about the addition of uncited content that Lightningstrikers wishes to add (I think to refute the previous sentence by Iss246), but the content has been disputed and she/he are not coming up with sources to support their position. My viewpoint has evolved to "no sources, no addition of disputed content"
  • So, an edit war commenced of which each of us was involved, and was not helpful in the end. I think Iss246's point is that they have thoroughly addressed the issue with Lightningstrikers and mine is that until they get sources for the content, let's keep it out. Lightningstrikers returned the content stating that it is being discussed. But they have not responded constructively to move that discussion to a conclusion.
  • None of my suggestions for getting disinterested third party help to improve understanding of the guidelines and make traction on making helpful edits have been pursued. And, of course, that is their right. I am just speaking to motivation.
  • If there is not more productive conversation that involves supporting points with sources and working to improve the article, but remaining efforts to delete, replace or add disputed content (their modus operandi since they began editing), then I think that a topic ban or block should be pursued. There have been about six people that have warned this user about disruptive editing and edit warring here, here at ANI, here, here, here, [11], [12] Their focus is nearly singularly on this article [13] and the places where they appear to be adding content is disputed, uncited [14].–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding CareoleHenson! The 4 sentence section in the lead you are both hell bent on including is not even discussed in the article. I actually think it is promotional. I think Iss246 has a conflict of interest and his connections to occupational health psychology it seems. You CaroleHenson have not answered why you are including it? That would help a lot. You avoid questions. You CaroleHenson reverted 4 times in a 24 hour period edit warring, which both you and Iss246 should have known given your supposed experience on Wikipedia. The section in the lead about which professionals are best has no relevance to the actual article on occupational stress and the content in the article. The heavily overweighted section in the lead is undue and against policy. Including such a section in the lead contravenes guidelines. None of this has been addressed by you. Get rid of the damn section in the lead or explain the reason it is there. Lightningstrikers (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I have explained the issue thoroughly here and on the article talk page. I am not fighting to keep the section. It confounds me that I need to keep repeating

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly.

Deleting an entire intro, though, without working to have an intro that is workable makes no sense.

I addressed edit warring above and believe that I stated the issues that should have prevented edit warring, but you chose to ignore. i.e., you are the warring party because you are not engaging productively. As stated above, you have been warned about that a number of times by a number of users. I provided the diffs above. Also, please see this section about talk page use to avoid edit wars]], which I tried to do.

I am not going to engage with further conversation with you, particularly in your circular questions where if you don't like something you just keep asking questions and then claim I am not answering them. There is zero reason for me to continue to answer the same questions 'ad nauseum'.'

I underlined a bullet and points that I added. I didn't realize you were around (was adding them quickly)–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lightningstrikers has said on the article talk page here that they need a break, which I totally get. But I hope that does not preclude addressing this dispute due to the amount of unproductive conversation and the reluctance of the user to work to improve the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"Deleting an entire intro, though, without working to have an intro that is workable makes no sense". WTF. It is 4 sentences added a week ago by one editor. it should not be in the lead at all. The rest of the lead shgould remain and then summarize the main points in the article as guidelines tell us. You ignore that fact. You reverted 4 times in 24 hours. I was warned but I'm new here. Funny how such an experienced editor never mentiobed this edit warring policy. Funny how such an experienced editor engaged in edit warring reverting 4 times in a 24 hour period CaroleHenson. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Cenk Uygur

– New discussion.

Filed by Cacash refund on 21:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Cenk Uygur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cacash refund (talk · contribs)
• wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is about the addition of a "primary sources" tag to the Political Views section of the Cenk Uygur page. Originally I had cited many videos that were created by Uygur himself through his company's YouTube channel, but the content was taken down repeatedly by user Slywriter claiming an improper use of primary sources. Through talk pages Slywriter and I appeared to reach an agreement, but then a primary sources tag was added to the section by user wallyfromdilbert, even after my new edits were put in. The current disagreement is over whether there are too many primary sources used as references in the "Political Views" section. Specifically, I don't think we agree on how to classify a video published by a secondary source that contains footage of Uygur speaking. Is such a video a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his views, or a secondary source because it was produced and published by someone other than Uygur or his company?

Furthermore, I think there is a deeper disagreement on whether a subject's own expression of his opinions are considered more reliable/important than a second party's account of those same opinions. User wallyfromdilbert says on the talk page: "A reliable secondary source that includes quotes from Uygur means that an author has selected which quotes and views by Uygur are important and has been allowed to publish them by their publication's editors." To me, this means secondary sources are the gatekeepers with respect to which political views are worthy of representation on a person's Wikipedia page. To me this seems problematic; it means other people besides Cenk Uygur get to characterize what his political views are based on what they do and don't publish. For instance, many newspapers recently covered Bernie Sanders' retracted endorsement of Uygur over Uygur's past political views, but didn't give Uygur's current views for context. If newspapers are the arbiters, Uygur's past views appear to be his current ones.

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

Talk:Cenk Uygur#Political_Views_edit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help resolve the dispute by providing clarity on the definition of a primary source. For instance, is a video of Cenk Uygur giving a speech at Oxford University and published by the Oxford Union a secondary source on Uygur's political views? Or is it a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his opinions directly?

Summary of dispute by wallyfromdilbert

This seems premature, given that the OP has left only 4 comments on the talk page. Only one other person has supported the idea that a whole section on political views can be sourced to primary sources, and none of the other participants on the article's talk page have been included in this DRN request.

To keep my response brief, interviews and speeches by an article subject seem obviously primary sources. They are even listed as examples in the WP:OR policy. Almost half the citations in the "political views" section are to the article subject's own website, which would be enough for the tag. However, most of the remaining ones are also primary sources, such interviews or speeches. Reliable sources should determine what is significant to include in an article (e.g., per WP:DUE), rather than the opinion of one editor. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Pashtuns

– New discussion.

Filed by Casperti on 00:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Casperti (talk · contribs)
• Shashank5988 (talk · contribs)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We have now a issue in the Pashtuns page. First of all, there is a source which is this source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece

This source is about the "Pashtun" Hindu ladies of Quetta. The fellow Wikipedians I have mentioned used this source to say these are Pashtuns that are ethnically Pashtun and are Hindu. I had explained in the Talk page last year in 2019 February that this source was not right based on other sources given. I explained and cited them trustable sources showing that there is not such a thing as "ethnic" Pashtun Hindus as they are of Punjabi/Hindokwan/Sindhi Descent. So this source should be placed in the "Hindkowans" or "Hindki" pages as they are Pashto-speakers of Punjabi descent. So, if you are of (Hindu) Punjabi descent Pashto they call you indeed "Pashtun Hindu" or "Hindki" as they have the Pashtun culture and are billugal in Pashto. So therefore they should be not placed in the Pashtuns page. But Shashank did not agree with this in that time. As he said they are NOT of Punjabi descendancy but are 100% ethnically Pashtuns.

So we placed with the help of other users the source as Disputed-Discussable (No reaction on neither side). Now 1 year later I finally found a source that is actually coming from the ladies themselves. https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/

Citation: “I was unaware of my identity as a Hindu Pashtun for the longest time. In Indian society, people are categorised on the basis of their caste and religion very early. To somehow adhere to the mainstream brackets of caste and religion my ancestors identified themselves as Punjabi I grew up thinking that I was a Punjabi,” says Shilpi.

As you can see, after one year. I found a source that they say they are of Punjabi ancestry. But they are indeed "Pashtun" Hindus but of Punjabi ancestry also called Hindki or Hindkowans.

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

Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As the other Party does not want to click on the source and accept that they are of Punjabi ancestry. Just see whether it is about the same ladies and if they are really indeed of Punjabi descent or not.

Here is the old source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece

Here is the new source found by me this year: https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/

Summary of dispute by Shashank5988

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Aman.kumar.goel

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Pashtuns discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.