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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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.
This section is largely unsourced and does not accurately reflect what sources say fully. It gives undue weight by mentioning part of what sources say and omitting the rest. I want to add sources, and I want those sources represented with a more complete content. However, this entire discussion may be off-topic for this page. I get consistent opposition to anything I propose, without referencing sources, without offers of compromise or responses to my offer of compromise, and no efforts at collaboration. I am very frustrated and didn't know what else to do but ask for help. Help!
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This is my first effort after the effort on the Talk page: [1]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am hoping for some direction to the others to make the effort to collaborate--or an opinion on whether this is off topic--or an opinion on what should be included--or anything that might break up the log jam. I'm getting nothing right now so anything you offer will be an improvement.
Summary of dispute by Objective3000
The article is about the persecution of Christians and the section in question, under the Nazis. Millions of people were persecuted by the Nazis for their religion and their religion alone. Moving the focus to anti-Nazi religious leaders, and even specific individual(s), dilutes the article focus as these people would likely have been persecuted irrespective of their religion. Anti-Nazis were killed as a regular practice. Frankly, I think the section is too long now. For example, it includes: Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy, were murdered for their suspected ties to the Polish Resistance or left-wing groups, or for sheltering Jews (punishable by death). Well, I think about 16% of all Poles were killed. We are talking about 3,000 killed out of a total 5,770,000 Poles killed. And most of them didn’t shelter Jews, or have ties to the resistance. Let’s stick to the subject, systemic persecution of Christians. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to volunteer for this case. To begin with- Each person involved needs to be notified on their talk page by the filing editor. Once that happens, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I tried to answer my own question in an effort to be less of a nuisance, and couldn't find that such a template exists, so I just went and told them on their talk pages and gave them this link. I hope that's okay, I am still a relative newcomer and this is the first time I've attempted this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenhawk777: No. This is exactly what I am tryng to avoid. All I need right now is a summary of what the problem is and what you want to see happen. We will get into the why and how later.Nightenbelle (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay the first thing I would like is for each person involved to confirm they are willing to participate, and the second thing is - in 200 words or less, summarize your position and what you would like to see happen at the outcome of this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777's statement
I would like to see inline citations for what's already there. I would like to see both the German Christians who supported Nazism and the Confessing church who opposed it mentioned. I would like to see a source for Slatersteven's definition of religious persecution, which differs from that used in the rest of the article, and I think is OR. Or remove all of this as off topic. Either way, I would like to see Dietrich Bonhoeffer included in this section. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity including any alternate views.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000's statement
Slatersteven's Statement
Yes I am willing to participate, and really have nothing to add, the sources (as far as I can tell) do not say what the filer is using them to support, they do not explicitly say it. Basically it fails verification.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so as I understand it- these are the issues at hand
1- Adding inline citations for existing information
2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism
3- The definition of religious persecution
4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
5- What the sources say/support
Lets begin with the definition of religious persecution since that will somewhat dictate how the other issues are handled. Would each of you please tell me- with a citation/RS what definition you are using to decide who was a victim of religious persecution and who was not? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' Statements
Slatersteven's Statement
[[3]] "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs", pretty much sums it up for me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that at Religious_persecution#Definition: "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens."[1] Or, Slatersteven's for that matter. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you have immediately gone to the heart of the matter. That is the primary cause of the disagreement here, because there is no such thing as an accepted or standardized definition of religious persecution in any reliable source. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the immigration regulations, omit any explanation of the meaning of religious persecution.[1]: 284 The federal courts have recognized it as “ill-defined."[1]: 284 Legal scholars have not attempted a definition because, "by and large, scholars do not believe that a unified definition is possible."[1]: 284
Therefore, it has seemed to me that the most reasonable thing to do is to use what's consistent with the 'working definition' assumed in the rest of this particular and specific article. This definition is "those who were persecuted, who would not have been, had they not been Christian." That's it with no other requirements.
As to the subject of this article being the systemic persecution of Christians, I would like to know where it either says or implies that because I apparently missed it. "Systemic" is not generally seen as a requisite to qualify as religious persecution, not in any RS, nor are the other sections of this article limited to that. There are no numerical requirements. I don't see how we can justify creating this separate definition for this one section of the article.
Slatersteven says he wants to know Whether or not we can include material about people or things that RS do not explicitly say were targets because they were Christian. This is a red herring, or perhaps it's a straw man, I get those two confused, but either way, it's a distraction, a 'sleight of hand.' I say that because, after Eusebius, there are no sources that 'explicitly' say Christians anywhere were persecuted purely and solely for their faith, not in any era, but this article does not see that as disproving that they were persecuted. That's actually quite reasonable of those who have contributed to this article, because in the sources, what is found is not a definition so much as a description of religious persecution.
This "description" is this: if someone is practicing their faith — preaching, or converting, or wearing a hijab, or proselytizing, or leading a home church, or opposing a tyrant, or whatever else their religion leads them to do that gets them noticed by the powers that be — and if they are squashed or harassed or harmed or killed for those activities, then they are victims of religious persecution according to contemporary understanding. According to legal scholar Scott Rempel, religious persecution is determined primarily by what harm is done to the victim under circumstances where religion is a recognizable causal factor. That includes those who were persecuted for actions they took because of their faith--like resisting participation in Roman sacrifice--or resisting Hitler. That's the standard assumed in this article.
In fact, that's the threshold used by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, and other human rights organizations, and even the US state department's OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Consistency in the meta-message requires using the same standard in this section concerning the Nazis as well.
That allows for including the Confessing church even if there is no source that says what Slatersteven wants. (I have no problem including the German Christians, that just needs citing. The disagreement is over adding their opponents, the Confessing church. I think both sides should be mentioned--or neither should--as they existed in equal numbers.)
Hitler did not kill millions solely for their religion, he killed anyone who had even the smallest amount of Jewish ethnicity. No source says otherwise. That's how anti-semitism is defined, as racial hatred; it is not primarily religious. He killed Jews who weren't practicing Jews. He killed Jews who were practicing Christians--the Aryan paragraph was aimed specifically at them. He didn't stop killing those Jews because they had given up their religion. He kept killing them, because they were ethnically Jewish whatever their religion was.
Hitler's well documented hatred of Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be defined as racial, since the Protestants were Germans. It was specifically a religious hatred, which all the sources also say, and certainly hatred of opposition, absolutely. This, and the definition/description of religious persecution used in this article allows for including Bonhoeffer as an example of the topic of this page. All the RS do say his religion was the cause of his opposition to Hitler, and that opposition got him killed. That isn't OR, it's in every source that speaks of him. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity.
I don't think it's appropriate for us to redefine the topic according to our own opinions in order to say what we want to say in this section.
References
^ abcRempell, Scott. "Defining Persecution." Utah Law Review 2013.1 (2013).
Jenhawk777 You say that there is no such thing as an accepted definition- yet both other editors provided WP:RS that say otherwise. And while your description is well thought out and reasonable- it is original research and synthesis based on your own opinion. Now, for the record- it happens to be an opinion I share, but its not supported by a RS that you have presented or I could find in a search. As such, WP must accept the sourced definiton. Now- I would like to give you another chance to find a source that specifically supports your definition and present it here. But baring that- I fail to see how we can reject a consensus around "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs" or "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens." (which are close enough to the same thing). As to the inclusion of the rest- thats something to be debated after we have a definition- so that will come soon, but not yet. Now, again, I want to be clear- I'm not here to make a decision- I'm just mediating- but we do have a consensus here. I realize its not what you would like Jenhawk777- so I ask- do you have a source that states your definition explicitly? If not.... the consensus will have to rule over WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add- I did read the article you referenced- I did not see anywhere it defined religious persecution in the terms you did- instead, it seems to agree with and use as a definition the same terms that were used by the other editors. If I am wrong- please include the direct quote I missed and accept my sincere apology. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's responses
Jenhawk's response
Since the sources say there is no standardized international legal definition, simply picking one out of the many definitions available seems a bit arbitrary, which I admit to doing myself. But that's the problem isn't it? Picking one, without including a discussion of them all is arbitrary.
Slatersteven's first reference is a blog which defines persecution as systematic. I actually accept this as far as it goes, but in what way does 'systematic' limit this definition?
In Rempel's article[1]: 343 he says "persecution should be defined as the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm," and he spends a lot of time defining harm. On page 288 he says that, based on a survey of "thousands of court cases", there are three frameworks for measuring whether harm is persecution: first, the minimal harm model which depends on the persecutor's motive and the State's willingness and ability to protect the victim. The second framework is called the cumulative harm model, and it aggregates experiences over time. The third model uses the concept of systematic harm. This means the blog's definition is basically one third of a definition from the real world and that it leaves out the other two models that are consistently accepted as persecution in courts of law. On what basis do we accept that blog's definition and not the others from case law?
Slatersteven's next reference is a book on politics, however, the book references Grim and Finke's definition of "violent religious persecution" on page 26 as: "physical abuse or displacement of people because of religion." I accept this definition for the most part as well, though it is limited to defining only the violent type of persecution, and if you check footnote 77 on page 126 of a book on using the human rights paradigm to define persecution,[2] it says "The harm or suffering need not be physical..." So, again, on what basis do we accept the one and not the other? They are both sourced.
Here is a training manual for the immigration services that says, where persons experience the denial of the basic human right to religious freedom listed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this is religious persecution.[3]: 26 That's also the way the US Department of State's Office of Religious Freedom uses the term persecution.
On page 28 of the RAIO manual, you will find that the "International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) states that "severe and violent forms of religious persecution, include 'detention, torture, beatings, forced marriage, rape, imprisonment, enslavement, mass resettlement, and death' merely for the peaceful belief in, change of, or practice of their faith.” I summarized that as those who suffer, who would not have suffered, if not for their faith, but that seems like an explicit statement of the same idea to me.
I wanted to add that the alternate definition suffers from the same issues. On page 344, Rempell concludes "the definition of persecution should not include unhelpful or incorrect qualifiers such as..., the requirement that a persecutor inflict a harm for punitive reasons." Religious persecution does not require that one be part of a religious minority. Christians are often persecuted in predominantly Christian countries just as Muslims are most persecuted in Muslim countries. There are no numerical requirements. It is not a requirement that the State be the primary actor.[3]: 22–30
"When determining whether particular harm or abuses constitute persecution, you must consider their impact on the individual applicant."[3] page 28
The truth is, none of these definitions are substantively different except that I acknowledge the wider and broader usage found in the RAIO. The list and description of the many aspects of religious persecution continues for the next several pages of the RAIO manual, but essentially, it says: religious persecution is suffering harm from a loss of religious freedom, and/or from "arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for various religious activities" (page 28), which is the aspect of the definition, explicitly, which says what I said in my summary form.
It seems to me that the broader definition is required by a recognition of what all of these sources say, and that is to some degree, synthesis. But choosing one aspect out of the many is arbitrary and OR. So what can be done?
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond.
As we are not an international (or even national) court of law we do not only use the "legal definition" or words or terms but also their scholastic or common usage. Thus international legal definition is a bit of a red herring. Nor does any of the IRFA training manual (As far as I can see) contradict what I have said, it tells you what you should do, it does not define religious persecution.
But it does say
"For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its
effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis." (my Empahsis)
Agree that we should not use legal definitions. The important part of any definition is that any negative effect must be specifically based on religious (or non-religious) characteristics of the persecuted. In this article, we need only focus on whether persecutor(s), in this case Nazis, did so because of religion. That aside, I would suggest that Jenhawk’s arguments would be more effective if they were more concise. O3000 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mediator's 4th statement
Okay progress at last! We can all agree that the legal definition is not the most appropriate. Thats something!!
So what we seem to have in common is- Intolerance, discrimination and/or harm based on religions or non-religious characteristics of the persecuted. Does that definition suit everyone?
And Jenhawk777, I do appreciate your carefully crafted response, but I do think O3000 has a point and your purpose would be better served with a more informal, concise tone. This isn't intended to be an series of academic essays, rather a discussion between colleagues and peers. Rather than compose your response as a research paper- try to condense your points into two or three sentences, maybe a paragraph and add inline citations as necessary.
So- Does the definition above suit everyone? It still leaves some room for interpretation, but at least it is a good jumping off place and- it would give everyone one set place to begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's responses
Objective3000's Response
Clarification: In this particular case, persecution of Christians, non-religious does not apply. Other than that, I'm fine with the description. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is specifically about religious persecution of a specific group, motive is a requirement. If the Nazi's shoot you for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and you happen to be left-handed, that's not persecution of sinistral people. Jenhawk777 added to the article TP that 18% of the Polish clergy were killed by the Nazi's. But, I think about 16% of all Poles were killed. It is not persecution of the clergy if they were just caught up in the mass slaughter of 5.7 million Poles. It's persecution of Poles. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777's response
I agree with Nightenbelle's definition and with Slatersteven's statement and definition. I disagree with Objective3000's because it adds the requirement of proving motive, which generally can't be done, which is where all of this started. Sorry that I am wordy. It's just who I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What we have just agreed to as our working definition is 'harm based on religion' without defining exactly how that is determined. As Nightenbelle says, that leaves some room for interpretation. There is no need to add proof of the motive of the persecutor to this. That addition would exclude about two-thirds of what is genuine religious persecution, and I could not support that. Religious persecution can be, and most often is, determined from the level and type of effect on the victim.
If the Nazi's shoot you for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and it turns out it was a trumped up charge, and you were tried in a kangaroo court with no evidence or witnesses, and you were hung immediately before any possibility of appeal or attempt to prove your innocence, but you did have a long history of Christian teaching and theology that opposed everything the Nazis stood for, and it was well documented that they hated Christians like you specifically, then it might be worth considering that you were being killed for practicing your faith and doing your job as a preacher instead of what they claimed as justification for your murder.
To my recollection, I did not add anything about the Polish clergy except a Talk page reference. I agree the Poles were persecuted. That's an important statement for this discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mediators 5th statement
Please refrain from back and forth editing.
So motivation is still an area of contention. Rather than hypotheticals- can we please find resources that discuss motivation as a requirement? On both sides? Hypotheticals require us to put our opinion into an article- which we are not to do as editors. We have to only report what RS say.
Editor's responses
Objective3000's Response
Well, either the article includes only those that were persecuted because they were Christian, or everyone that was persecuted for any reason who happened to be Christian. The former assumes a motive related to their religion. The latter is, frankly, ridiculous as it would include people that were persecuted because they were black, homosexual, Soviets, political prisoners, Roma, and disabled who happened to be Christian. They were not persecuted because they were Christian. We have other articles about various groups the Nazis persecuted. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk's response
@Nightenbelle: I am so sorry, I did not know that was wrong. Please accept my genuine apology.
Religious persecution requires religion as a cause, we all agree on that. But all the sources I have so far referenced indicate that can be determined in multiple ways; it doesn't require an explicit statement on the part of the persecutor to prove religion is a causal issue. It does require that there be some overt action that leads the victim — and/or other observers and/or the court — to conclude religion was a factor: and someone in a reliable source needs to say so.
I am thinking that, perhaps, the issue here is, does religion have to be the only cause, the primary cause, or just a cause of persecution to qualify as religious persecution and inclusion in this article? And second, what will we determine as acceptable from the sources as demonstrating this: the victim's own words, other commenters/observers contemporary with the victim, or will only the persecutor's direct confession do? All the sources I have checked indicate that religious persecution is often just one of many motivating factors for the persecutor — they are also driven by ethnicity and economics and political views and so on — so that will impact how we answer these. This matters for the entire article, not just this section.
Human Rights and the Refugee Definition Comparative Legal Practice and Theory, on page 163, says "Since the nexus between persecution and [religion] must be established by a neutral and objective assessment of the act of a persecutor (and not an assessment of his or her subjective intentions) it is not the reason for persecution which is actually the problem in assessing cases..."
Beginning on page 339 of Rempell's article, there's a discussion that includes the motivation of the persecutor. In the first paragraph it says "...an intent to punish ... is "neither a mandatory nor a sufficient aspect of persecution” because ... persecution simply requires that the perpetrator cause the victim suffering or harm.” and at the bottom of the page, "“The fact that a persecutor believes the harm he is inflicting is ‘good for’ his victim does not make it any less painful to the victim, or, indeed, remove the conduct from the statutory definition of persecution.” It's the flipside of what we're discussing, but it does indicate that intent on the part of the persecutor is not a defining factor.
Policy is clear (per wp:v) a source must explicitly say something, if it is not blindingly obvious it fails verifiability. Now we all agree that "religious persecution" is "persecution based upon religion", the only bone of contention is the idea that whether or not just being a christian who is persecuted counts as persecuting someone because of their religion. That would fall under wp:or, as the editor is making a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mediator's 6th Statement
I'm sorry, but Jenhawk777 The sources you provide fail to explicitly state anything other than determining motivation is problematic. They do not justify your position that persecution as a result of actions based in religious beliefs equals religious persecution. They must explicitly say that to count I'm afraid. Otherwise, Slatersteven is correct that is WP:Synthesis and . That combined with the agreement of the other two editors not to include that aspect of the definition equals a consensus at this point. I'm sorry.
So-
1- Adding inline citations for existing information (Does anyone argue this isn't necessary? Does anyone have a problem with this?)
2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism
3- The definition of religious persecution
"Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs"
4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
5- What the sources say/support This has been covered by policy really- sources must explicitly say something to be used. We cannot extrapolate, assume or in anyway synthesize.
So Now that was have a definition- what about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? What do the sources say about the reasons why he was persecuted. Do any of them say that he was persecuted/killed because he was a Christian... Or do any sources specitfically say the actions that caused his perseuction were because of his Christian faith- this can't be assumed- it has to be specifically stated. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's statements=
slatersteven's Response
ON 1 I have long argued we have way too much dubious content there and yes, it all need citing.
As to the rest, if RS say X was persecuted by the Nazis for being a christian, yes we could have one or two examples, but I would rather we just discussed it in more general terms. We cannot have a list of Every Christian persecuted by the Nazis, even it is was due to their faith.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on 2- I don't want to go through the list of Every Christian to die under the Nazi regime. So you are okay with mentioning a few specific examples as long as they are explicitly covered by RS and confirmed by those RS to have been persecuted because of their Christian faith? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article covers a period of 2,000 years, and religious persecution is common. Given this, I don’t see adding any individuals, with or without inline cites or even if sources say the person was specifically persecuted for being a Christian. If we look through this lengthy article, names are generally used of persecutors, not those persecuted. Groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Bruderhof make sense for inclusion in the Nazi section as they were persecuted en masse by the Nazis. These are obvious examples of Christian persecution as they were all persecuted. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, don't be sorry. It's just the way these things go sometimes.
1 I agree with both you and Slatersteven on #1, but it doesn't matter in the end.
2 The German Christians did support the Nazis, but if a statement of persecution for religion is necessary to be included here, why are they being included? They weren't persecuted at all.
3 Eh. I object to the term systematic, but it doesn't really matter at this point, so whatever.
4 I only have sources that say Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church were led to oppose Hitler and joined the resistance because of their religious beliefs as their primary reason for doing so, and that they were persecuted for that opposition, but that's all there is anywhere. I have a source identifying theirs as a "theological-political" resistance, but there are no sources that say their persecution was purely based only on their religion and had nothing to do with their participation in the resistance. Separating their motives and actions and the results seems like splitting hairs to me, and the sources don't do that, so if we are doing that, then they can't be here.
5 I agree without question concerning RS, and I agree I don't want a list of every Christian that died either. For many, religion was not the primary cause of their resistance, it was just an aspect of who they were, and therefore deserves no mention here. Religion has to be a primary cause of resistance for it to be seen as a cause of persecution. Diocletian never said "go out and kill Christians because they are Christian." He said, 'everyone must sacrifice and those who won't must die', and those that died are all counted as Christian martyrs because their primary reason for resistance was their religion. Just like Bonhoeffer and the CC. I wanted to stay consistent with that, and I think this inconsistency is a problem, but so be it. I concede, so long as the discussion of the German Christians, and the rest that isn't really about those who were persecuted, is removed. So I agree with Objective3000. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is found in pretty much all the sources: "...hatred and animosity pursued Bonhoeffer...His name was included on a secret list of enemies who must not be allowed to escape even if the whole state collapsed...
Alfred Delp and Dietrich Bonhoeffer had both adjudged the nature of Nazism from the viewpoint of their Christian faith, which led them into opposition to the regime, and resulted in their deaths. Their fate and that of the many other churchmen who were executed after 20 July 1944 is standing proof of the implacable enmity of the Nazis toward the churches."[1]
Beginning on page 328 is the conclusion of the book which is worth reading: "The persecution of the churches was the outcome of two of the most significant aspects of the Nazi system... [one being its] ideological fanaticism. The Nazi's ambition to destroy the existing order of society went hand in hand with their determination to propagate a new German racial [worldview]. Their attack on the traditions and institutions ... attempting to drive them into obscurity to die out as unlamented relics of the past. ...there can be no doubt of Hitler's innate antipathy to Christianity ... a 'hoax' and a 'gangrene' which must be cut out (329). And on age 338, "It found in Dietrich Bonhoeffer a martyr whose life and example have become a watchword throughout the world. The courage and energy of Martin Niemollöer in the face of political persecution have redeemed some of the vacillating compromises of weaker men. ...If the era of Nazi persecution has revealed that man is still ready to worship the false gods of nationalism and expediency, it also produced men whose readiness to suffer for their faith saved the church from total apostacy..."
By our definition, that's inadequate, but by all that's good and courageous in this world, that just seems wrong.
References
^Conway, John S.. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. Canada, Regent College Publishing, 1997.p.290
Then is sounds like we have reached a point where we are all on the same page. While Bonhoeffer does deserve recognition and a page of his on, he does not qualify to be highlighted specifically on this page. Do you guys think you can work on finding the inline sources and inserting them based on talk page discussion or do we need to continue the mediated discussion here for that? It sounds like everyone agrees they need to happen. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editors' Responses
Jenhawk777
We must remove the section that needs sourcing because our definition for inclusion requires persecution directly for faith and the German Christians were not persecuted--for any reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am reopening this case at the request of User:Jenhawk777. The other editors will be notified within a few minutes. Jenhawk777 is requested to make a statement below explaining why they have requested re-opening.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A section in the article includes the German Christians who supported Hitler; it has no inline citations. We agreed it needs citations, but I had asked about just removing it instead. It doesn't meet the definition of persecution we agreed to. That removal was not discussed.
These quotes are used as proof there was consensus on keeping it: Slatersteven says We cannot have a list of Every Christian persecuted by the Nazis, even it is was due to their faith. just as Objective3000 says Given this, I don’t see adding any individuals, with or without inline cites or even if sources say the person was specifically persecuted for being a Christian. That's about adding Bonhoeffer. The German Christians were a group not an individual, and they were already in the article, so there would have been no discussion of adding them.
However, if I am mistaken, and Slatersteven and Objective3000 actually thought these statements were about the German Christian paragraph, then there is consensus to remove it, not keep it. It seems to me it can't be interpreted both ways.
Jenhawk777: Exactly what is your issue about article content that is why you wanted this dispute reopened? It isn't clear. Please identify one to three changes to the article that you are requesting. Do not say that unsourced content should be removed; say what unsourced content should be removed. Be specific and clear.
Apparently, what I most objected to has now been removed and slightly rewritten. No one pinged me to let me know, so I just discovered it, but it's now good enough for me to support the content of the first four sentences as they are. I don't know who did it or when, but I thank them.
As to referencing, I'd just like to see a little clean up, that's all. These sentences have a pile of 9 references all in a row at their end, that need to be inline citations of those sentences they actually refer to, with the extras removed. It's impossible for anyone to check them as they are.
The sentence that begins, "The Third Reich founded its own version of Christianity ..." is an aspect of how the Nazis persecuted the churches, so it's relevant to the topic, and should be kept. However, in order to fully represent what sources say about it, I would like to see a second sentence added--"This is what (sources) say led to the development of the Confessing Church and what Protestant opposition to Nazis there was." This makes no claims concerning persecution, so perhaps we could agree to add that one statement without fighting over it.
That's it. The rest has been fixed.
Thank you Robert McClenon for doing this. It's amazingly wonderful that you responded as you did. You listened. I'm deeply grateful.
I also respect, appreciate and admire Slatersteven's objectivity, reasonableness and commitment to good content (no matter how irritating their opponent is), but I will be sure and tell them that personally.
Is there anything else that needs to be mediated? I will close the case if there is nothing else to mediate. If there are any remaining issues, please make a statement of not more than 100 words for each issue.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tenth Statements by Editors
Jenhawk777
Not for me. The German Christians are no longer mentioned. All my original complaints have been addressed. I didn't get to add in what I wanted, but that was consensus, and I said from the start that I was okay either adding balance or removing imbalance, and since removal has happened, I'm good. I assume whoever has been fixing the rest of it will finish inline citations. Thank you again for your willingness to help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven
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.
Closed. The filing editor had been topic-banned from edits in the areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That ban included using dispute resolution to resolve disputes in those topic areas (with the exception of appealing the topic-ban itself, and that is not what this was). So this should never have been started. If a page had been created, it could be speedily deleted as G5, ban evasion. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Dear admins, According to MOS:LEAD the lead should be neutral. If you just go through the format of lead you could see that it is clearly mentioned how the lead should be descriptive and neutral. Takbir being used by the infamous terrorist group as a war cry is not mentioned in its Lead. Please note that I am not writing it because I want it but because this is a particular format should be followed by your editors too. You people are human too and can have biases (No offense). I have seen one admin here is an atheist, I hope he does not have something personal against Hindus just because of conservative BJP party. One thing I want to state clearly is that I have no problem with criticizing the use in an appropriate column such as Takbir but the description should be neutral without the last lines. Thank you.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
First, you could please make the initiative by acknowledging the editors to follow the format of the lead which is set out by Wikipedia.
It would be appreciated to put out the use of Jai Shri Ram as war cry on a particular column and not in the description, not only this hurts the value of the sentiments but also totally tear out the neutral approach that is set out by Wikipedia. Please look into it, thank you.
Summary of dispute by MelbourneStar☆
Parassharma1 hadn't notified me about this DRN discussion, but nevertheless: to understand MOS:LEAD as only a puffery summary of the article without mentioning significant (even negative) aspects of said article, is to wholly misunderstand MOS:LEAD. The lead, especially the phrase "war cry", is backed by consensus which Parassharma1 should be well aware of. The latter editor has consistently refused to get the point and simply doesn't like what they read, resorting to comparing this article -- to an unrelated one. This has resulted in an IPA topic ban, which they have violated repeatedly. Once Parassharma1 returns, I would encourage them that they drop the stick and conform with their topic ban. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jai Shri Ram discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is disagreement as to whether Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel and Ian Wright should be listed as founders in the Tesla, Inc. infobox. As the footnote in the infobox notes, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original founders of Tesla; Musk, Straubel, and Wright only negotiated to call themselves co-founders after-the-fact, in a lawsuit settlement in 2009. As shown on the talk page discussion, reliable sources consistently and clearly name only Eberhard and Tarpenning as the sole co-founders of Tesla. I believe the infobox should reflect the determination made by these reliable sources, and only list Eberhard and Tarpenning as founders. Editors opposed to this change argue that the lawsuit settlement means the true founders of the company is now a "disputed" fact, which should be recognized by including Musk, Straubel, and Wright as founders as well. This feels to me like allowing the involved parties to re-write history, because the verifiable facts show that the true founders were only Eberhard and Tarpenning. The additional context of the lawsuit and settlement allowing Musk, Straubel, and Wright to call themselves co-founders is better suited for the article's main text, not the infobox.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think you can provide input on whether the lawsuit settlement makes the founders of Tesla a "disputed" fact that warrants mention in the infobox, or if reliable sources clearly show the verified facts to be that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole co-founders of the company.
Summary of dispute by QRep2020
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There are two participants who reject the current Founder configuration in the Infobox, two who affirm it, and two who argue that the field should not be used in the specific article at all; two of these participants came to the discussion via a request for outside comment. Clearly there is a disagreement that needs resolution.
My case for rejection is that the Infobox is not an appropriate place for including contingent labels that were "agreed upon" after the fact. The Founders field should consist of only relevant verified historical (abbreviated) statements as that is how any particular standard field of any type of Infobox consistently presents in Wikipedia articles across all categories. If there was a standard field in Infobox (company) template designated Retroactive Founders then that is where Musk, Straubel, etc. would be listed, but there is not. Placing the three retroactive founders' names in the Founders field with a footnote attached to them does not grant some sort of exception especially since the article itself already explains how Eberhard and Tarpenning created the company, coined its name, etc. as well as what happened in the subsequent lawsuit and agreement.
The editors who think that it should only be 2 founders have equated founding with those who signed the incorporation papers. But there is no legal definition of founder and even WP says at Startup_company#Founders/entrepreneurs that "The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company." Article currently lists 5 founders, with a footnote on the 3 disputed names with details and reference - ie very compact but lets the interested reader know. Stepho talk11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by MartinezMD
I don't see a problem keeping the list of founders as all 5 of the men in question. The three founders in question have proper footnotes explaining that they came later but that a negotiation led to the 5 being listed as such. Who are we trying to please here by saying otherwise? MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by A7V2
The discussion seemed to go a lot into a specific definition of what a founder is, but I feel this is not relevant and instead Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, which as per my own comments I feel are just the two founders. That said, I agree with IPBilly's point that the infobox should only provide a summary, and contain as little information as necessary. So I feel that under the circumstances of it being disputed, the infobox category should either be left blank or have something like "disputed" so that it can be discussed in the article. Given that only one user (not including myself just now) has responded to this idea (which hadn't been raised by anyone else), I'm not sure what the point of this discussion here is? The discussion on the talk page is only a week old and IPBilly's comment just two days old. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by IPBilly
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The disagreement appears to be centered around the criteria for inclusion in the Infobox:founders category; the individuals responsible for originally incorporating the organization or persons whom carry the title "founder". Side A would like to change the infobox to list only the two "original" founders; including the 3 others would be rewriting history because they gained the title only after a court settlement. Side B would like to list all 5 founders because those 5 individuals all have the title "founder". Both sides have produced verifiable sources that support their position. I proposed splitting the baby and removing the category from the infobox entirely because either listing of 2 or 5 founders does not "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Given that there seems to be no disagreement 3/5 founders were added post-hoc, the key fact is that the "true" founders are disputed/honorary. IPBilly (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla, Inc. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The issue of this discussion is primarily caused by different ideas of what a founder is. Some have taken it to mean the people who signed the incorporation papers - and only those people. This does work for the majority of cases. However, the term is only a vague term that just means someone heavily involved during the early periods of the company. Wikipedia's own definition allows for founders to be whoever they agree it to be. It is perfectly acceptable to put all 5 founders in the infobox, as long as there is some (hopefully short) marker to point the reader to a fuller explanation of the controversy. Stepho talk22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one making an argument based on the definition of a founder. Others are simply relying on the determination made by reliable sources as to who the founders are, consistent with WP:NOTTRUTHStonkaments (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. per WP:NOTTRUTH"In most other contexts, there are more than truths and lies under the sun: there are half-truths, lack of context, words with double or unclear meanings, logical fallacies, cherry-picked pieces of information to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion, inadvertent reuse of someone else's lies, and even misunderstandings. A statement may fail to adequately convey the state of affairs regarding some topic, without that statement being an actual lie." Reliable sources have made both determinations of the founders, and it is up to us to decide which definition is appropriate and therefore which determination is most appropriate for the infobox. Sort of like how the original roadster was a hacked up Lotus Elise with an electric motor, nobody disagrees that it was a "Tesla" because it carried the Tesla badge, even though it originally started as a Lotus. In that scenario we'd be discussing the definition of "manufacturer", and whether or not a company must manufacture the chassis (or what minimum amount of contribution is necessary) in order to claim it as their own. IPBilly (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you, me and some of the references are using different definitions of founder. Which is why we simply list them all, add a marker and an explanation the controversy in the text (or footnote in this case). No lies, no hiding but still simple in the infobox. Stepho talk21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going back to talk of definitions, but who are we to determine how a word is to be used on Wikipedia (or anywhere really)? Or to force a "new" usage via some extraneous introduction of footnotes? My point is we should instead to look at how other Infoboxes for company articles operate and try to maintain conformity, which is to be done by either using verified historical statements as the contents of the fields or by simply by leaving fields out entirely. I think the latter is a bit extreme given how readily available documentation about the creation of Tesla is, but it is certainly more consistent with other wide Infobox usage than mixing statement types (spurred by conflating the concept of a retroactive founder with that of a founder). Also, since we are already treading familiar ground here, maybe we should refrain from discussion until some other uninvolved editor contributes?QRep2020 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We keep going back to definitions because the heart of our disagreement is our definitions of what a founder is. My use of the word agrees with the WP definition and Tesla's own usage. Your use of the word agrees with some respectable organisations (eg Britannica). Calling them "retroactive founder"s is the no true Scotsman argument. When it's not clear cut we just list both sides and move on. Unfortunately this is an edge case, so most company infoboxes will not us give any guidance. But yes, I'm happy to hear from more people. Stepho talk23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not fallacious reasoning on my part and I take offense to that claim. There are those who initiated a company and who everyday English language speakers use "founders" to refer to - and then there are those who are allowed to call themselves founders because of some legal procedure. Call the former and latter whatever you want but there are obviously material differences between the two, i.e. one precedes the other by playing a fundamental causal role in a company's inception.
Tabling that matter, I would like to call attention to why this idea that the "definition of "founder" on Wikipedia" is ambiguous is inaccurate. On Template:Infobox_company, the line concerning the Founder field provides: "The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company." While it is not a particularly illustrative definition, it is one that does work but not one that "captures" Elon Musk and the two others who were not "in the room" when the company was started. Why? Because while some of us might want to allow a broad definition of "founder", no one has called into question what it takes to be said to have founded some company. The five of them did not found the company - only two of them did that in mid-2003, and then years later three others gained the right to call themselves founders. We might be tempted to think etymologically about all of this, but that is irrelevant: We know what it is to found a company (i.e. to initiate it) and Wikipedia gives us a definition of "founder" that has the word refer to those who founded some given company. The state of Wikipedia's definition of "founder" is not cause for deciding on a new one that could in turn facilitate the five names being list as they are now - it is fine the way it is and the way it is is cause for removing three of the names. QRep2020 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without arguing for either side, I’d like to point out that according to WP:INFOBOXREF, inline references should only be included in an infobox when the material both (1) requires a reference and (2) does not appear in the body of the article. If we don’t break this rule, then the only acceptable resolutions here seem to be either (A) including all five in the infobox with no inline reference or (B) including only the two original founders in the infobox. The current state of the infobox (C) includes all five with the latter three having an inline reference, whose content is then repeated in the main body of the article. (Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.)
If we apply WP:INFOBOXREF strictly, then only (A) or (B) can be a real resolution here. However, we shouldn’t just always blindly follow rules. This may end up being a case where WP:INFOBOXREF shouldn’t apply, so (C) might be appropriate.
Now that I’ve pointed out the relevant infobox reference guidelines, I will say that if the choices are only between (A) and (B), we should prefer (B) over (A), because (A) seems misleading and would confuse people who later read In the main body of the article that three of the founders are disputed. For this reason alone, I believe we should all prefer (B) over (A), even if you genuinely believe that all five should otherwise be listed in the infobox.
However, choosing between (B) and (C) is much more difficult and is the main dispute at issue here. To those who believe that (C) is more appropriate than (B), I will point out that you may be tempted to prefer (B) solely because WP:INFOBOXREF strongly and directly disincentivizes (C). Does this reframing of the dispute in the context of WP:INFOBOXREF help others to reevaluate their position? If you originally preferred (C) over (B), does knowing this context make you any more favorable toward (B)? Or do you instead feel that (C) should be preferred over (B) despite WP:INFOBOXREF? — EricHerboso02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explication. I promote (B) in part because of "the rules" but also because the Infobox should provide quick verified historical statements for people who are skimming the article to read. Whatever the intention of creating the Infobox as an element for Wikipedia, I doubt anyone would deny that it is used by a lot of users to gleam key information about the subject of the article without having to go through the entire article itself to find it. Even with these inline references, having the five names possibly misleads some of these skimming readers as to the early history of the company because inline references requires an active action, i.e. clicking, to reveal the additional information they contain. QRep2020 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! From the same arguments we come to the opposite conclusions. You said yourself that many readers will skim the infobox and come away with only those facts. By listing only 2 founders they will indeed come away agreeing with your conjecture that there are only 2 founders and that there is no more to say about it. But there is more to say about it. There are 3 more people that the company believes are founders. Since "founders" is rather vaguely defined, both 2 and 5 founders have supporting arguments.
Similar, the same argument applies if we list 5 founders with no further adornment - skim readers will think there are 5 founders and there is no more to say about it. This agrees with the definition that Tesla and myself use but obviously not with the definition that Britannica and yourself agree with. And again, the reader is short changed.
Therefore, there are only 2 honest representations we can make in the infobox.
Make no mention of it in the infobox and let the reader find it in the main text. The reader will not be led into either your or my interpretation alone and will have to make up their own mind from the references given. Possibly the founder field can have the words "disputed, see text" or similar.
Mention all possible founders with a marker of some type to indicate that some are in contention. Again, the reader is not lead to blindly follow either you interpretation or my interpretation.
WP:INFOBOXREF gives the very sound advice that "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Ie, it does not strictly rule them out but strongly suggests that they are only needed in unusual cases. In our case, whether there are 2 or 5 founders is not obvious. We could argue that the number of founders is expanded in another part of the article. But if we had either 2 or 5 founders listed and no marker then skim readers will not realise that and might come away with the impression that the particular founders listed (2 or 5) are the entire story. Therefore, there must be some form of marker, reference, footnote or similar on whatever we list.
Note also that even though the infobox currently has a footnote marker, the explanatory text and its reference are not in the infobox - thus taking up very little space in the infobox. I have no problem if you want to make that footnote a little longer to show that some authorities (eg Britannica) have the opposite opinion than Tesla does. Stepho talk09:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a lot of what Stepho-wrs has said here, and I disagree that WP:INFOBOXREF is particularly helpful in this case. This policy to me is written in such a way that it cannot be "strictly applied" for it only offers a suggestion: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed..." - to me this says that in unusual circumstances it is perfectly acceptable to include references in the infobox. Also I will point out that explanatory footnotes are not inline references, so this would not be a reason to justify their removal. If others feel that the explanatory footnote itself (if it is decided to keep one) has been adequately cited in the body of the article then they (the citations) could be removed from it (the footnote). I'm unsure why "Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.", and Eric Herboso has given no reason for this. To the second part of what Stepho-wrs I agree 100%. Clearly given that there is a dispute, if either 2 or 5 are included then there ought to be a footnote explaining the controversy/dispute, or otherwise the field should be left blank or preferably (as I now feel) it should be listed as "disputed", perhaps with a link to a relevant section. A7V2 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option D is probably a non-starter because it doesn't resolve any of the disputes here, it's very much a "everybody loses" outcome. That said, my reasoning for suggesting that option is as follows: a) it avoids re-hashing this same discussion some time in the future with different parties that have the same opinions. Each side has an entirely rational reason for wanting only two or all five individuals and neither side is "wrong", but both sides can't be right. B) A seemingly definitive statement that the other three are not founders is as misleading as suggesting they are to somebody that doesn't/won't read the rest of the article. I was initially of the opinion that all five should be included but persuasive arguments have been made for only the original two that have swayed my opinion slightly. I think that the casual reader will come to the page with some idea that Musk was one of the founders (right or wrong), and seeing the name not listed could lead to further confusion or a negative reaction of "I'd better fix this", I believe the mindset of trying to avoid future edit wars is against some wiki policy however. C) There is not (as far as I'm aware) a policy stating that every infobox field must be used, by omitting it there is no way that the reader, casual or interested, would be mislead. I'm not opposed to simply noting the disputed status and linking to the relevant section, but I do not know how controversial the founder's dispute is outside of wikipedia and this option may be drawing more attention to the matter than is warranted.16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPBilly (talk • contribs)
Volunteer Note - I see that there has been extended discussion here, and the discussion appears to have been productive. Usually discussion before a moderator arrives is not productive, so I thank the editors for being collaborative. Do you still want a moderator? I am willing to come up with a revised set of rules that encourage constructive back-and-forth. The rules will still say to be civil and concise, because those are always a good idea, and not to edit the article, which you are not doing, because that is a bad idea. Do you want very lightweight moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the participants have been doing well but have said that a moderator will help, I will provide this statement.
Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. These rules seem to have been followed, which is good.
The main issue appears to be the infobox.
The editors have agreed that there are four options about the Founders field in the infobox.
A. List all five people. An explanation can be p rovided in the text of the article.
B. List the first two people. An explanation can be provided in the text of the article.
C. List all five people, but with an explanatory note for the three who were added.
D. Omit the Founder field in the infobox.
So are there any other options on the infobox? Also, are there any other issues requiring dispute resolution?
If there are no other options, then we need to decide whether we will resolve the infobox question by a consensus here at DRN, or use an RFC. If in doubt, we should use an RFC. If we are using an RFC, the important consideration is to be sure that it is clear and properly worded.
Each editor should provide a brief statement in the section below. If you comment on another editor's statement, indent your own comments at least two spaces. If you reply to a comment, indent your reply at least two more spaces. Make your own statement also. However, it is probably better at this time only to make your own statements.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors after moderation started
There is also the option that came up in the above part where we have no names listed and instead put 'Disputed' in the field, perhaps as a Wikilink to the appropriate subsection that discusses the matter at length.
For the reasons I supplied above and elsewhere, I am opposed to A and C (with prejudice for A), my vote is for B, but I will support D or E (assuming E is the 'Disputed' option). QRep2020 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find all of the 4 options have problems.
A. Listing all 5 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 5 and that there is nothing more to know.
B. Listing only 2 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 2 and that there is nothing more to know.
C. Listing all 5 with a note. A note inside the infobox takes a up a lot of space in what is meant to be a summary. Unless you meant something very short like "Under dispute, see main text" or a footnote link.
D. If we omit the field altogether then some well meaning soul will see the missing information and add it - bringing us back to today's situation. Possibly we should fill it with a comment similar to "don't fill this in, see dispute arguments in text".
As I see it, we want to keep the infobox uncluttered but not misleading. I see the only tenable options as:
1. List no founders in the infobox but have text similar to "Under dispute, see main text". Same as QRep2020's option E.
2. List all 5 but add a footnote to elsewhere in the page that explains the situation fully. I can see now that skim readers might miss the subtlety of this and just think that there are exact 5 founders.
3. List all 5 but add extra line similar to "Under dispute, see main text". This is starting to get cluttered.
4. List all 5 but for the 3 disputed names add "(disputed)" to that name. Also slightly cluttered but at least it is clear.
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.
We have been disputing which version of a section is better in order to be included in an article. By “better”, I mean more "encyclopedic" or "neutral" or "clearer", etc. This began as a NPOV-related dispute, but since both versions have undergone major changes, the dispute is now less about bias, and more about tenuous wording\style preferences. (both versions are ok in my opinion, but one is a little nicer to read). For context: the section deals with controversial statements made by a computer scientist.
Let's call them Version "A" and Version "B". Version A can be found HERE. Version B can be found HERE. To make things easier, I'll put both of them, side-by-side in the collapsable table below:
Versions A and B
A - Resignation from MIT and FSF
In September 2019, Stallman resigned from both MIT and the Free Software Foundation following his posts on an internal MIT CSAILlistserv mailing list about Jeffrey Epstein's relationship with deceased MIT professor Marvin Minsky.[1][2][3] In response to a post citing an article about Virginia Giuffre's deposition that Epstein had directed her, as a minor, to have sex with Minsky, Stallman criticized the choice of the word "assaulting", which implies the use of force, to describe Minsky's behavior.[4] In the emails, which were published to the public via Medium, Stallman also wrote:
Giuffre was being coerced into sex -- by Epstein. She was being harmed. But the details do affect whether, and to what extent, Minsky was responsible for that. […] We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing. Assuming she was being coerced by Epstein, he would have had every reason to tell her to conceal that from most of his associates.[5][6]
Further down the thread, responding to an argument that the location and time assumed based on the article would make it statutory rape, Stallman added: "It is morally absurd to define 'rape' in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17".[4] Stallman's words were perceived by some as an attempt to downplay sexual exploitation and minimize Minsky's alleged involvement.[7] Reports also claimed that Stallman defended Epstein, which he denied: "Headlines say that I defended Epstein. [...] Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned".[8]
Criticisms intensified when Stallman's earlier remarks about pedophilia resurfaced: "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren’t voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing".[9][10] In 2003, when commenting on judge William Pryor's claim, in support of an anti-sodomy law, that a constitutional right to choose one's sexual partner must logically extend to "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," Stallman wrote that those "should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness".[11][12][13] He has since disavowed this belief.[14][15]
A joint statement signed by 33 GNU project developers classified Stallman's behavior as being alienating and advocated his departure from the project.[16] Nevertheless, Stallman remains the head of the GNU Project.[17][18]
B - Resignation from MIT and FSF
In August and September 2019 it was learned that Jeffrey Epstein had made controversial donations to MIT, and in the wake of this, MIT Media Lab Director's Joi Ito resigned. Students and others users started an internal MIT CSAILlistserv mailing list thread to protest the coverup of MIT's connections to Epstein.[19] In the thread, discussion had turned to deceased MIT professor Marvin Minsky, who was named by Virginia Giuffre, a victim in the underage sex trafficking ring run by Epstein, as one of the people that Epstein had directed her to have sex with as a minor. In response to a comment where one reply stated that Minsky "is accused of assaulting one of Epstein's victims", Stallman defended Minsky by claiming that "the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing", and asserted that the use of "assault" or "rape" in Minsky's case should not apply when further challenged by other members of the mailing list.[20] Stallman remained critical of Epstein and his role, stating "We know that Giuffre was being coerced into sex – by Epstein. She was being harmed."[21]
Stallman's posts were published to the public via Medium, and Vice published a copy of the email chain to that point on September 13, 2019, drawing attention to Stallman's comments.[19][22] Many people started to look into Stallman's past writings over the following days to find what were considered troubling statements related to underage sex and laws relating to child pornography from 2013 and earlier.[20] Tied to his comments regarding Minsky, this led to several calling for Stallman's resignation.[22][19] Stallman acknowledged on September 14 that he had since learned his past writings that there were problems with underage sex, stating on his blog "Through personal conversations in recent years, I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm her psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that."[20]
On September 16, Stallman announced his resignation from both MIT and FSF, "due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations".[23] In a post on his website, Stallman asserted that his posts to the email lists were not to defend Epstein, stating "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him—and other inaccurate claims—and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding."[20] Stallman remains head of the GNU Project.[18]
^Lee, Timothy B. (2019-09-17). "Richard Stallman leaves MIT after controversial remarks on rape". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2020-08-05. Stallman objected to headlines saying he defended Jeffrey Epstein."Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^Flaherty, Colleen (September 18, 2019). "Computer scientist Richard Stallman leaves MIT amid controversial remarks about the Epstein case". Inside Higher Ed. In another post from 2003, Stallman quoted then-federal appeals court nominee William Pryor's argument that if choice in sexual partners was guaranteed by the Constitution, then "adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be, as well. Stallman's analysis was that Pryor was "probably mistaken, legally -- but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrow-mindedness."{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^"2019: July - October Political Notes - Richard Stallman". stallman.org. Retrieved 2020-08-11. I've learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
talk page discussion here
Two uninvolved editors defined version A as being "carefully written" and "better readable and comprehensible"; Lazer-kitty claims that version A has "noticeable NPOV issues" but refuses to provide proof, when I asked them to explain those NPOV issues, they replied: "I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me"
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Right now we need to select the overall more appropriate version to serve as the base text (or starting point) for future developments. (It has been suggested, by an uninvolved editor, that we should somehow mix aspects of both versions, merging their qualities. We probably are going to work on that after the base text is defined)
Summary of dispute by Lazer-kitty
I will not be participating in this discussion beyond writing this comment. The ANI that Daveout references fizzled out because he seemed to agree to take a break from editing the article and discussing it with me. If he sticks to that then there is no dispute between us and nothing to be resolved. When he says above that their ANI case against me was completely ignored by admins, due to its utter baselessness and improperness (and pettiness), this is a blatant and obvious lie and unnecessary personal attack against me. It was not ignored by admins, it in fact had the full attention of an admin, who certainly never suggested the ANI request was baseless, improper, or petty; in fact, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. Daveout has a habit of repeatedly misconstruing and/or lying about the circumstances of our discussions in order to attack me; for example, he's very fond of taking my I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me statement out of context to make it appear like I refused to answer a simple request. Furthermore, when Daveout notified me of this new DRN on my talk page, he did so while saying remember to keep it civil and avoid re-dragging unrelated past events (or i'll be encouraged to do the same). Anyone who reads the ANI will note that the only person "re-dragging unrelated past events" was Daveout, so it's unclear to me why he's threatening retribution for something I never did. So, again, I will not be participating in this discussion and instead will explore Arbitration Enforcement per @Robert McClenon's suggestion (although, to be clear, I never had any interest in filing further ANIs or "forum shopping" as you put it until Daveout decided to continue his behavior). For what it's worth, believe me, I am fully aware that the above information is largely outside the scope of a DRN discussion, I just felt like I owed Robert and @Clone commando sev a full explanation. Sorry for wasting your time and thanks for offering your help. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Stallman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Robert McClenon: I wanted to keep it brief and avoid reviving all that drama. But since you’re interested, the story is this: Lazer-kitty and I were in a dispute. We weren’t able to reach consensus (bc not many ppl were interest in the subject). El_C asked me to come here (DRN) to resolve that dispute, but I didn’t do that and continued edit warring along with lazer kitty (because I had misunderstood his instructions). So El_c blocked me from editing that page for a month. Now I’m following their advice, which was also supported by LK. But Lazer-kitty wanted my one-month partial block to be extended, but they didn’t present any new misconduct on my part to justify that, so their ANI case against me was completely ignored by admins, due to its utter baselessness and improperness (and pettiness). I’m not forbidden to engage in discussions, so there is no sanction being violated here. Furthermore, our behaviors are being supervised by 2 admins, if there were anything wrong, they would have intervened already. — Daveout(talk)07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note At the ANI- user Daveout said he would not be editing this page any further and admins strongly encouraged him to take a break.... Nightenbelle (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know that discussing an article was the same thing as editing it. In fact, both El_C and LK encouraged me to take this step before. NO ADMIN encouraged me to "take a break". I decided that myself. But the discussion continues and other editors criticized the current version of the article. As far as I'm aware I'm not doing anything wrong. If I am, please correct me. — Daveout(talk)21:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the ANI... several admins suggested you taking a break was a good idea after you said you were going to- they said it was a good idea. And Generally the word editing on WP means working on it... discussing it is working on it.. .so instead of getting snippy- WP:AGF. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nightenbelleseveral admins? -Could you name just one of those? I read the ANI -Actually, it looks like you misread the ANI. Get to known the diff between admins and common editors before commenting on a situation. — Daveout(talk)15:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clone commando, The previous dispute was closed bc LK decided to open an ANI case against me instead of discussing it in here - LK asked admins to topic-ban me (that failed). It would be nice to have you as a moderator in this dispute. — Daveout(talk)23:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Right, it's really not that complicated. For me, it's simply a question of style. but Lazer-kitty claims that version A has "significant NPOV issues" too, so here is my proposal to lazzer-kitty: correct the perceived npov issues in version A (as you see fit) and let's implement that version in the article?..... I think it's a fair compromise for us to make — Daveout(talk)02:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed. The filing editor has also filed a case at WP:ANI. That is probably just as well, both so that we don't have to try to deal with this, and because WP:ANI often does an effective job with boomerangs. Closed here because this noticeboard does not handle cases that are pending in another forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have tried multiple times to add objective, verifiable facts to this page and every time I do, the same person comes and removes it and provides inaccurate reasons, while being incredibly rude and unprofessional. Nevertheless, every time he does so, I go back and try to revise my post to satisfy him but no matter what I do, the post keeps getting removed. Instead of acknowledging and leaving the facts on the page, the person is now splitting hairs and picking out single words that he doesn't like, instead of leaving the facts where they are on the page. I've asked several times how to add evidence if he is so upset by the citations I've made, but I get no response. I have also cited verifiable sources and these keep getting rejected too. The explanations make no sense whatsoever and seem to be simply having fun harassing and bullying me. Please make that stop.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Assign an editor who isn't doing this just for fun and to push the public around. I'd like to be treated with respect and get HELP to make a post proper if you feel it isn't, but I seek DIALOGUE, not bullying, as well as a FAIR resolution. Calton has made it very clear that no matter why I type, he will come up with a reason to delete it. Please provide dispute handlers not associated with him as I can envision him getting his friends to help bully me.
Summary of dispute by Calton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Petfinder discussion
Despite what TIA says, there has been no discussion on the talk page of this article for about three years. TIA repeatedly inserts blocks of text sourced to the subject's own website, telling the subject's version of steps they have taken. User:Calton is only one of a number of editors who have had to revert these insertions by TIA. --Orange Mike | Talk04:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed. The filing editor isn't trying to discuss anything, but simply making some sort of demand, although, because there hasn't been any discussion, it is hard to figure out what the filing editor is demanding. A demand for administrative action can be made at WP:ANI, but caution is advised when throwing a boomerang at an emu that isn't there. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I filed a previous dispute regarding removing a sentence on the 'Eugene Scalia' that violated the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. An independent moderator named 'Deb' reviewed the article and agreed that the sentence as written needed to be removed. She did so. Afterwards, the user named Evrik, put the sentence back. I have provided a very lengthy explanation in the Talk section why the sentence violated Wikipedia policy. I just removed the sentence again.
I request that you enforce your own Wikipedia policy and your own ruling on the sentence. If there are ways to prevent Evrik from adding back the offending sentence, I request you do so. Otherwise, can you inform him in the talk section that adding the sentence back is not acceptable and I intend to file a dispute against a user if he does it again. I would prefer not to do that, but bullying against Wikipedia policy should not be allowed. I am grateful for your time.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
'Deb' already ruled the sentence as written violated the Wikipedia policy and should be removed.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please clarify to Evrik that he may not re-add the sentence that was removed. If there are ways in the code to block him form being able to do so again, I request that you do that. If there are further consequences that are possible, I request that they be considered or at least that he is warned in the talk section of any consequences.
Summary of dispute by Evrik
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eugene Scalia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. I am closing this as forum shopping, as a conduct dispute, and as unlikely to be solved here. The RFC is still open. It hasn't been formally (or even informally) closed. If the filing editor thinks that the RFC has failed due to the sockpuppetry, they can ask to have it closed first. Otherwise it might be closed afterward with a different conclusion than a discussion here. Anyway, if the issue has been unending since 2014, moderated discussion with two other editors is not likely to resolve it. Also, the filing party said, in one of their recent edit summaries, that they were reverting vandalism. This noticeboard doesn't deal with vandalism, and it doesn't normally deal with disputes that someone has muddied by yelling vandalism in order to "win" a dispute. If this really is a content dispute, it needs an RFC to resolve it. If this really is a conduct dispute, whether due to edit-warring, sockpuppetry, or vandalism, it needs administrative attention. The conduct allegations have muddied the dispute to where the next step is almost certainly WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The underlying issue is the identity debate within this particular ethnic group. The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the accepted term of self-identification within this ethnicity.
This group is currently divided between those who still hold to the identity "Assyrian", whilst others have now adopted "Aramean", amongst others. Organisations in favour of the identity label "Aramean" use the term to apply to the entirety of the ethnic group, as opposed to "Assyrian", and do not argue that they have separated from those who identify as "Assyrian", and vice versa.
As "Assyrian" is accepted as the catchall name for this ethnicity in academia, due to its former status as the sole label, there are frequent POV edits to Arameans in relation to the modern people that identify with this label. Much of these users argue that "Aramean" and "Assyrian" are ethnically separate from each other, typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers, providing no evidence at all, or providing unreliable evidence.
This is an unending issue that has existed without resolution for over a decade, of which I have dealt with constantly since I joined in 2014.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think there needs to be a permanent statement that the article Arameans is purely for the ancient people, and the modern people that identity as "Aramean" should be treated alongside "Assyrian" at Assyrian people, in line with the academic consensus that they are in fact the same ethnic group. There could be possibly be a permanent ban on IP users editing the page, as they are typically the propagators of the belief that they are ethnically separate from one another.
Summary of dispute by H0llande
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Optra2021
On the Aramean talk page, user Mugsalot quote:
"In the last fifty years, West‐Syriac Christians have continued to PROMOTE Assyrian identity as a means of uniting all Syriac Christians, regardless of religious affiliation, within a single nation...MANY Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have RESISTED the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology..."" Now Mugsalot contradicts himself by saying "The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the ACCEPTED term of self-identification WITHIN this ethnicity."" Wasn't it resisted??? "Assyrian" has neither been the commonly used term in academia nor is it accepted by most scholars or within these peoples! It is commonly used in English media, because most people who identify as "Assyrians" emigrated to English-speaking countries. I am not sure why Mugsalot is trying to fool everyone here again. He uses endless low-quality sources/references even written by Assyrian nationalists to justify his biased behavior. I invite everyone to read through the talk pages archives on Assyrian people and Arameans to see how high-quality Aramean related academic sources have been vandalized, removed, falsified or never made it to Wikipedia just to fit the narrative of Assyrian POV editing! To make it clear to outsiders what is going on with the endless edit wars: For the last 2,000 years, these various groups of people commonly referred themselves as Suryoye/Suraye (literally "Syrians" in English) in their various Aramaic languages/dialects. The last 100 years some groups started to form national-political movements labeled as "Assyrians" with an identity and ideology based on scholar, e. g. A, B,... . Most Suryoye/Suraye rejected this, leading the formation of their own national-political movement, namely the Arameans based on scholar, e. g. C, D,..., their pre-nationalistic tradition, folklore, culture and literature in the words of their own forefathers in their native tongue that they are descendants of the ancient Arameans. Ancient Assyrians and Arameans used to be two distinct ethnicities. Since scholars, e. g. C and D do not fit Assyrian nationalistic views (Evident in Mugsalot's above comment: "...typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers..."), sources are invalid in the eyes of him and his companions, therefore they have to be removed or vandalized, thus hurting the mission of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources and Information then creating the corresponding articles, no matter if it is pro-contra Assyrian, Aramean whatever. The current Assyrian people article is clearly POV edited by mixing ancient Assyrians, which is also very controversial in academia that these modern groups are descendents of them or political Assyrian ideologies that are not supported by other scholars or even within the group itself. Pro-Assyrian nationalistic writers such as Mugsalot and Co are referring to WIKICOMMONNAME, but forget that it would only apply, if the overall content is the SAME, which is not the case! Now Mugsalot is heavily destroying English Wikipedias credibility by calling the Arameans an "Assyrian" subgroup, deciding who is who based on his OWN assumptions! Todays Arameans are their own ethnic group, identity, flag, history, organisations, e. g. World Council of Arameans who represents the Aramean nation, including the Assyrians to the United Nations (UN). Arameans are recognised as an ethnicity by the state of Israel. A small "subgroup" wouldn't be able to built such a strong network worldwide. From Mugsalot's text above, it is obvious, he is not interested in finding a solution other than keeping the Assyrian POV.
My suggestion to solve this problem, we should take a look at German Wikipedia and it works perfectly there:
Assyrians and Arameans articles about the ancient, pre-Christian people only.
Assyrians (present) and Aramean (present) about the present people only, similar to how we have Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrians, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) articles on English Wikipedia. The case between those South-Slavic groups is very similar to that between present Assyrians and Arameans. Serbians claim Bosnians to be Serbians, while Bosnians reject this and claim Serbians to be Bosnians though they speak mutual intelligible languages. Mugsalot already quoted from a source there was no unified "Assyrian" nation to begin with, therefore "Assyrian" is neither the generic term to describe these people as a whole nor are the Arameans a subgroup of anyone. Even within the Bosnians, we have Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats articles. Mugsalot and other Assyrian nationalists are trying to force Arameans and other Syriac groups under the highly disputive "Assyrian" term to be the generic term for these various Aramaic-speaking and Syriac Christian groups, which is not supported by a lot of other academic sources/studies. This would be like if some Italians join Spanish nationalism and forcing other Italians to be Spaniards as well. Ironically, the so called "dialects" Turoyo Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Arameans/Syriacs and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Assyrians are mutual unintelligible. Therefore it should be reflected by creating independent articles to keep Wikipedia neutral and prevent Assyrian POVs.
The Historian Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. He says: "The people we Greek call Syrians, they call themselves Arameans" From: See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956)
No, go ahead. Sorry, for my long text, but outsiders should get a neutral point of view, what happened, why those countless edit warrings, ... . Hopefully by giving examples, you understand the topic a little bit more.
Btw, here is a list of Wikipedians with an Assyrian identity, which has successfully established and infiltrated on English Wikipedia. If you pay attention to those who contributed Aramean related academic sources in the past, they mostly got reported by these Assyrian individuals for allegedly "POV" editing and got blocked by administrators, who are unfamiliar with this matter. There are almost zero experienced Wikipedians specialized in Aramean-related topics, which should be suspicious and alarming. WikiProject Aramea is virtually dead ever since. Mugsalot and others are trying to fool unfamilar administrators by stating "same people" or "WIKI:COMMONNAME". The current English Wikipedia articles do not reflect the reality at all! "Assyrian" is not simply a name, but identity and political ideology reflected in the highly disputive Assyrian people article by forcing various Syriac-Christian groups under its umbrella term. Trying to fool readers, these groups of people are descendants of the infamous ancient Assyrians, which is rejected by many scholars and the Arameans themselves. Holidays such as newly created "Kha-b nisan" an Assyrian nationalist holiday, which not celebrated by Arameans. Syriac-Orthodox people being native outside of the so called "Assyrian" homeland are not seen as "Assyrians" by nationalists yet getting Assyrianized on English Wikipedia to avoid any signs of an Aramean ethnic group, e. g. the town Sadad and its inhabitants are clearly of Aramean descent h ttps://youtu.be/WSZeohqHHmE, but on Wikipedia it says "Category:Assyrian settlements". I could give endless examples.
You've again proven my point that you are relying on either no academic evidence or unreliable evidence, such as referencing a YouTube video. I provided a number of quotes from reliable sources, and I do not mean quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC, here, to attest that Arameans and Assyrians are considered the same ethnic group. I find it bizarre that Optra2021 is asserting his POV that they are separate from one another, yet passionately defends this edit that is contrary to his argument, which uses the label "Aramean" as an umbrella term instead of Assyrian, as seen in the Iraq section. He, as well as others, frequently engages in accusations of Assyrian nationalism, when in fact I have no relation to this people whatsoever. Mugsalot (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Showing the video was to demonstrate the ridiculous chauvinism by editors like you to twist facts. I highly doubt you understand the issue here, do you? Even if both groups are of the same ethnic stock, both groups reject each others identity and ideology supported by numerous sources/scholars, therefore you can't talk about one ethnic group (it should be clarified what defines them as one ethnic group instead of two or more) from a neutral point of view and this must be reflected on English Wikipedia, not from the point of view by Mugsalot, Assyrian editors, Aramaean editors,... ! Scholar A or B claim these peoples to be descendants of the ancient Assyrians as clearly stated in the POV section of the Assyrian people article, while scholar C or D claim these people to be descendants of the ancient Arameans. People like Mugsalot come in to decide on their OWN PREFERENCE that Pro-Assyrian scholar A or B are correct and pro-Aramean scholar C or D are wrong, therefore only content that suits the narrative of Assyrian POV editing the best, thus vandalizing, removing or block contributions to Wikipedia. Accusing Aramean or contra-Assyrian related contributions to be "POVs". New editors are accused to be sockpuppets and get immediately blocked hence why unfamiliar administrators should be suspicious a large group of Assyrian Wikipedians exist while many Wikipedians specialized in Aramean or contra-Assyrian related topics do not exist or many were/will be blocked due to wrong accuses. Today I was also accused to be a sockpuppet! "...quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC,..." Numerous references, e. g. 1 to 5 given on the Assyrian continuity article are all simple websites, not academic sources unlike the academic source I provided above, which Mugsalot tried to weaken by saying "philosopher". The quotation is from CAMBRIDGE Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956. You know what Cambridge is, Mugsalot!? Again Mugsalot is showing his biased behavior not interested in finding a solution. To teach Mugsalot how to contribute according to Wikipedias policy, here is a contra-Assyrian academic source against Pro-Assyrian scholar Parpola:“a careful reading of Parpola’s articles and the introduction to Assyrian Prophecies reveals arguments that are often circular and flawed, in which, by virtue of an enthusiastic presentation, what remains to be proved is transformed into evidence for a construction that resembles doctrine more than theory” - J.Cooper “Assyrian prophecies the Assyrian Tree and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, Gnosticism, and much more” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:3 (2000) p430
The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission J. F. Coakley p366 "I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh know to readers of the Old Testament. The link has proved irresistible to the imagination. In modern times, Syrian children have been named 'Sargon', 'Nebuchadnezzar'. etc.; the winged lions of Nineveh have appeared as national symbols; and, in short, the name is now inseprable from a whole bogus ethnology."
Pro-Aramean academic source, e. g.:Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page:120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is, Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference betweenhis and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."
S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]""Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'.""This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle."(See Dorothea Weltecke)
S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"In many Syriac writers Aramoyo [Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"
None of these academic sources and many others made it into English Wikipedia thanks to Mugsalot and Co. or could be accommodated into Assyrian POV written articles and sections. As you can see, the "Assyrian" terminology is highly disputed to be used on the Arameans. Unlike Assyrian POV editor Mugsalot and Co, I am interested in solving this problem. Creating specific, independent articles similar to German Wikipedia would be the best solution and in line with Wikipedia's policy to be a neutral platform without favoring any party. It should be noted Maronites and Chaldean Catholics articles exist on Wikipedia, who also happen to be Syriac Christian groups. Optra2021 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle your evidence firstly. Your provision of a quote from a 1st century BC philosopher is contrary to WP:PRIMARY as it is your own interpretation, and thus unreliable, regardless of whether Cambridge published it or not. Plus it should be common sense that a quote from over 2000 years ago is irrelevant to a conversation about modern identity. Per WP:YTREF, that YouTube is not a reliable source as it is not from a recognised, reliable organisation or agency. It's somewhat suspicious that you're directly quoting the same evidence as here. The quote from Brock & Coakley, available here, discusses content that is again irrelevant to a discussion on a modern ethnic group as it is discussing ancient ethnic terms. If you would continue reading you would see "In modern times the ethnic identity of ‘Aramean’ has been taken up in some circles of the W.-Syr. diaspora as a corrective to the popularity of Assyrian themes", again demonstrating that this is an identity debate within a single ethnic group.
Your quote from here, whilst interesting, again discusses content irrelevant to the modern ethnic group as it discusses the ethnic terms used in the literature of a historian in the 12th century. You have actually provided no evidence relevant to the modern ethnic groups. If one was to look at the Aramean Democratic Organisation's website, you can find they sponsor the belief that Assyrians and Arameans are the same ethnic group, "The Arameans (including "Assyrians" and Chaldeans)". Optra2021 and others constitute the fringe that believe that they are separate from one another.
Volunteer Note - User:Mugsalot, User:Clone commando sev - There is an RFC in progress on this article talk page. Does the topic of this DRN differ from the topic of the RFC, and, if so, how? If they are the same or mostly the same, this DRN should be closed. If they are different, it is important to clarify what the scope of this DRN is. We don't conduct moderated discussion when another dispute resolution process is also going on. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: The RFC was swamped by SPAs and other users who have since been blocked, and has been inactive since 11 August, so I would not consider it an ongoing dispute resolution. Also, the topic of the RFC was the purpose of the Arameans article, whereas this DRN revolves around the usage of the terms "Aramean" and "Assyrian" across all relevant articles. Mugsalot (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Mugsalot just started edit warring on the Arameans article without waiting for the case to be officially closed. He simply reverted it. He is not an authorized administrator to make such decisions and proves my points that he is an POV editor.--Optra2021 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
CopperheadOS has a disagreement over, in essence, the spelling of the "developer" name being used in the Operating System Infobox. It has been discussed on the Talk:CopperheadOS#Removal_of_source_for_the_company_name Talk page. I carelessly broke the 3RR (by a couple hours). Apologies. The editor name, Anupritaisno1, most recently changing back to 3-p's has not participated in the Talk on this issue.
One side wants the name spelled "Coppperhead" with 3-p's, based only on a lookup at this search link. Comments:
The operating system is not mentioned at this search result; the connection is inference.
The above search result says "Beta: This is a new service — your feedback will help us improve it." indicating it could be faulty (aka unreliable).
The above search result says "For the complete profile, go to the official registry source: ServiceOntario" with a link. My search at ServiceOntario gives "0 results for Coppperhead" (3-p's). A search for Copperhead (2-p's) gave several results but none for the OS company (or I missed it).
The other side wants the name spelled "Copperhead" with 2-p's, based on CopperheadOS website - copperhead.co (trademark statement at bottom), every mention of the company name in all other sources used in the article, and trademark lookup sites.
Side Note, related issue: An editor would also like to add a statement to the article saying the company was incorporated in November 2015, based only on the same beta registry lookup site.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Article Talk page only (and I was warned about 3RR on my user Talk).
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Uninvolved eyes and opinions, previous experience with similar issue.
Summary of dispute by Anupritaisno1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Pitchcurve
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The current incarnation of CopperheadOS is officially developed by a company commonly known as Copperhead. The original OS was developed by an open source development team before the company was incorporated. The open source project and the company split down different paths into the current proprietary CopperheadOS and the open source GrapheneOS. Referring to the developer as simply being the company is incomplete and misleading in the first place. The infobox should likely be changed to distinguish between the original and current developers. The history section can go into detail about it. The continuation of the product by the company and the open source project by the original development team both claim to be the true successors to the project. High quality articles like the golem.de piece present it as open to interpretation. There are a bunch of unreliable sources being used that are simply paraphrasing press releases and social media posts without properly distinguishing between verified facts and the claims from either party. These are primarily based on the company's press releases and statements, and combined with questionable editing of the Wikipedia article (not by anyone involved here) previously led to a very inaccurate article presenting a corporate narrative. The subject matter is not notable enough to have much proper media coverage which makes the many controversies and the active dispute with the open source project quite problematic for the Wikipedia article.
Multiple articles used as sources including the Ars Technica article discuss that the company was founded in Toronto, Ontario to commercialize the open source project. The official addresses associated with the company (it changed) can be used to uniquely identify it and distinguish from any similarly named companies. The date and location it was founded also work. Citing the company itself for the date it was founded would give the same date, but simply isn't necessary when there's a neutral and authoritative source available. The sole use case for the databases offered by Service Ontario and commercial services like Opstart is to obtain an accurate date and legal name for the company. They aren't being used to confirm the connection of the company to the OS. Some articles about the OS were written before the company was founded and others were written afterwards. These articles do not generally try to give specific dates / timelines, so it's nice to have an authoritative source to cite for a precise date. For this article, this is important because otherwise there's going to be a fight about whether the open source project or company existed first. Using an authoritative source for this information was my attempt to put that part of the conflict to rest.
While doing this research, I noticed that the legal company name did not match the one given by the article, and that there had been a previous scuffle about it earlier. I think the article should use the official legal name of the company, particularly since those kinds of information databases cannot be searched without the correct name. It does not make sense to refer to it by the quirky official name in the body of the article where the common name Copperhead is a much better fit. "Copperhead Limited" is an attempt to reference the official legal name of the company but it's incorrect. Contact Service Ontario yourself and you can verify this.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I first came to this article in an administrative capacity, but now on this particular issue I probably count as WP:INVOLVED. The crux of the dispute is whether to use "Copperhead Limited" as the developer name, as used on the company website[9] and in its trademark listings,[10][11] or whether to use Coppperhead Limited (with three P's) as listed in Canada's Business Registries. The 3-P name is allegedly a mistake made by the Copperhead founder when registering the business. Aside from the business registry, I am not aware of any third-party reliable sources that cover the alleged naming mistake. The dispute is complicated by a real-world dispute between the Copperhead CTO and the CEO; the CTO left the company, later founding the rival GrapheneOS. The real-world dispute, and social media activity related to it, is likely the reason that this article has recently seen an influx of new editors. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Taybella
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
CopperheadOS discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Closed because 1 comment on the talk page that was made yesterday does not constitute a discussion- you need to make a good faith effort to solve the problem yourself on the talk page- not in edit summaries. Now- I will say that User:Trivialist is correct- Youtube is not a WP:RS however- from a quick google search, I found SEVERAL other sources that list that episode in season 5, so with a little more looking- you should have no problem finding a RS to use to support your change. If you are still having an issue after that, try a longer discussion on the article talk page, WP:3o or WP:rfc and if none of those works, please open another case here. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There seems to be a minor disagreement on rather the episode Joshua is part of season 4 or 5. I have posted sources and Youtube links that show it is part of season 4, but each time I do User:Trivialist claims I am wrong and anything I post is just random links
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Have others join in on the discussion or have a vote on the subject
Summary of dispute by Trivialist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D160:45D8:B8CB:7A7
I noticed Joshua was listed as part of Season 5. The episode has the same opening as all other season 4 episodes the only difference is that it has a 1998 copyright date at the end that is the only thing that makes it different. so I tried to change it but Trivialist decided he wanted to engage in edit warring I tried to tell him to please come to the talk page so it doesnt look like he is fighting just out of bordom or to start trouble. but he refused. I think more people should help and discuss this. Not just me and him.
List of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. There appears to have been no discussion on the article talk page for several years. The filing editor states that there has been a discussion on a web chat. While discussion on a web chat is permitted, it does not satisfy the requirement for discussion on an article talk page. Discussion must be on the article talk page because other editors may be following the talk page, and so that editors can refer back to the discussion. Discuss this, and any other content issues about the article, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
in the old page it was writen that an egyptian and english dish was inspired by the indian dish
a user have edited this article and said that the egyptian dish is not inspired by this dish
i have reverted him several times and provides 5 links to prove the orginal text
but he also and anther user have reverted my info
i am asking how to solve that dispute
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
if each one of the three of us can provide sufficient proves and links that ensure his information
and i am sure that the other users dont have any proves or evidence about their info
Summary of dispute by Julietdeltalima
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Materialscientist
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Khichdi discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets
As you see none of them have number 166 in the season standings. P.S. I have proposed a compromise with putting this amount to the note, but this proposal was ignored by the opposing side.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I do believe that you can give neutral interpretation of the policies on that matter, which will resolve this issue.
Summary of dispute by Tvx1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I really don't understand why this was escalated to dispute resolution. And I certainly don't understand why I'm being singled out. This certainly does not only deal with the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. There was a general discussion on a how best to deal with the results of competitors who have been penalized by the deduction of a part or even all of the points they had been awarded during the course of a season. I felt it was a constructive discussion with a general positive atmosphere and thus certainly not a dispute. Unfortunately there a clear consensus on one rule on how to deal in the exact same manner with every potential situation did not appear to emerge. Corvus tristis made one edit to the aforementioned article based on a consensus they perceived had emerged an which added some incorrect facts (adding point totals McLaren had never been credited with to footnote). Upon review of the WT:F1 discussion a did not detect that consensus (certainly not for mentioning the aforementioned totals in any way) and thus decided to revert. I feel that filing this for is an overreaction. I also don't understand the accusations of policies being broken. The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources and care has been taken that our readers are clearly explained that the points between bracket do not count officially.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet
Not sure why this has ended up here, but my input to the discussion was simply that I believe these "points in brackets", i.e. deducted points, points removed from a team's total, "ghost points" if you will, do not belong in a statistical table. They can be explained in text, as they are important. But they no longer exist, and do not exist in source material from which we draw information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by 5225C
I participated in the discussion at WT:F1, but at the time this was discussing Racing Point in the 2020 season, and I used the 2007 article as an example. To me, this issue is quite straightforward. In both situations, points were awarded to the championship but were later removed. Since a constructor's points are the sum of all points scored by a constructor's vehicles, how are we going to account for the difference between points awarded and points counted? Points in brackets are the best way. In 2007, the team was awarded points at most races, but were specifically excluded from scoring points at the Hungarian GP and then the Belgium GP to the end of the season. Thus, those points were never awarded and never existed. However, when the team was excluded from the championship, we still show the awarded points in brackets - because they existed. There is no speculation, crystal balling, synthesis, or whatever you want to call it here. The team was credited with 166 points which were later excluded from the standings (ref/ref/ref) The tables account for this. I do not understand why this issue has gotten to dispute resolution, and I disagree that Tvx1 is in any way responsible for inserting false information. I am happy with the current state of the 2007 article and feel it appropriately addresses the difference in championship points. 5225C (talk • contributions) 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by DB1729
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My only involvement was this comment, which was solely in regards to Racing Point's 2020 parenthetical points. I have no strong opinion on the related, but separate McLaren 2007 issue. --DB1729 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Falcadore
My understanding of the dispute is that User:5225C was defending the usage of 0 (166) to display in 2007 that the McLaren team scored 0 points after being excluded from the World Championship point score but had they not been excluded would have scored 166 points.
McLaren however were excluded. What they might have scored is speculation. They did not score those points. Indeed the language is that they were excluded. Not penalised, but removed. Wikipedia via WP:Speculation does not encourage speculation as Wikipedia records what was, not what might have been.
The same applies to Racing Point in 2020. They have been been penalised 15 points, so the total points tabulated includes that penalty. As of the time in the timestamp of this post they scored 66 points. Not 81 points not 66 (81) points.
There is a bracketted use of a secondary points number but that refers to dropped points due to the scoring mechanism, not due to penalties applied.
Regards; --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Because Tvx1 was the one who reverted my edit. Other parties were involved to the discussion, but not into the reverting. I have notified but, I assume that is situation is at the dead end as we have two polar positions. I just want to hear what will be more correct in the terms of our policies. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. Is it possible for local consensus (reminder: in WT:F1 we don't have reach such for keeping this extra in the table) to prevail policies? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: with all due respect, the statement "The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources" is not correct. The number 166 doesn't appear in the only source for the note and you have not provided any other sources which confirm any relation of Italian McLaren points prior exclusion to final McLaren points. As you said it is not official and it is just your original research in the context of the season standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep putting the blame on me personally? This is not my original research. I’m not the one who put points between brackets there in the first place. Nor did I write that footnote.Tvx1 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you, I just link it with you because you was the one who restored this points in brackets and the one who defended to keep it in the discussion. If you are not supporting it anymore, maybe it is time to remove this stuff and end this pointless discussion? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note... part 2 First of all- part of the rules of DRN is no back and forth discussion until a volunteer steps up to take the case. So you two need to stop arguing here. Secondly- all involved editors in the talk page discussion must be notified and invited to participate before we will begin mediation here. If you are only concerned with behavior of one editor- (Ie Edit wars) you may want to try ANI instead of here. If you are wanting to find a compromise for a content dispute- you are in the right place! Just get the other editors involved here and we will begin. Until the other editors are invited- No more back and forth discussion please!!! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since one participant has stated they don't intend to participate.... this is being closed with the suggestion that both parties focus on concision and WP:AGF moving forward. Also with the reminder that the DRN is not some kind of punishment or shameful thing to participate in. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There has been an ongoing debate about the religion of Kapadia's parents. It started on the article's FAC and never resolved. The sources are quite clear, saying her father comes from a Khoja family who embraced Hinduism while still following some of the tradition, but another user is unsure whether it makes sense, saying once it is "not based in any reality that I am aware of". Based strictly on the sources, the current version reads as:
"Chunibhai was from a wealthy Ismaili Khoja family, whose members had reportedly 'embraced Hinduism' while still regarding Agha Khan as their religious mentor; Bitti was an Ismaili, too, and similarly followed Aga Khan." Shahid • Talk2me16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Just opine on whether the current version is acceptable in view of the sources provided. Kindly offer an alternative if it is not. Shahid • Talk2me16:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wealthy Khoja family, which embraced Hinduism only with Chunibhai's father, Laljibhai, and which accepts the Agha Khan as its religious mentor even now, disowned Dimple's father the day he agreed to Raj Kapoor's proposal to let her sign for Bobby.
Open magazine (2019) in a piece about Dimple Kapadia's daughter says (link):
...nurtured in an eccentric lapsed Ismaili Khoja family ... Her maternal grandfather, Chunibhai, was infamously disowned by his father, Laljibhai—who had embraced Hinduism, but continued to regard the Agha Khan as his religious mentor—when he allowed his daughter, Dimple, to act in Bobby
As for her mother, Dimple's daughter Twinkle Khanna was interviewed twice ([12][13]) where it's said that her maternal grandmother (Dimple's mother) was an Ismaili.
I was actually initially opposed to mentioning her parents' religion at all, because no source provides this information from the horse's mouth, but insistence on the part of the user on the FAC (including a threat that unless religion was mentioned, they would oppose the nomination) encouraged me to look for something. And I did. But the facts as they appear in sources were not to their liking. The user's main claim was that it doesn't really make sense that an Ismalili Khoja family would embrace Hinduism. I personally don't know, I think anything can happen, and I believe following the sources is the best way to go. WP:OR is the worst pitfall Wikipedians might stumble into, and despite being explained how Wikipedia works, the user kept detailing why it's not plausible ("not based in any reality that I am aware", as they put it), in complete violation of the policy.
The nomination was opposed by them on this ground, and the entire FAC turned into a mess as the user started coming by every once in a while with random comments (most of which also went along the same lines - a lot of personal judgement and OR), addressing other reviewers and persuading them to oppose the nomination. The closing coordinator archived the nomination and let the user know the disruption they caused. I could have just adjusted this line according to the user's belief in the first place to spare it all, but I'd never do it - I follow sources and not personal agendas. I believe in Wikipedia, its policy and guidelines, verifiability should guide us all and not likelihood, as it is perceived in the eyes of random users that think that if they are not aware of something, it does exist. Shahid • Talk2me16:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Fowler&fowler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I haven't been a part of a dispute resolution discussion in more than ten years. I am an academic. For the first eight years of my career, I taught both undergraduates and graduate students, and thereafter only graduate students, many of whom have graduate students of their own now. I have not divulged this to tip the scales of this resolution in my favor, but to give a sense of the limitations of time, and of self-possessed endurance, I can bring to such discussions (which "RL" is inadequate to explain). The problem as I see it is not whether a source was considered reliable by the Wikipedians that happened to be present for a discussion—it may well have been—but whether that alone make the content plausible. Judgments about plausibility require a feeling for the methodology of arguments (hypotheses, evidence, warrants, and conclusions) and for the use of such arguments in a field of inquiry. To a student, I can very well say, "Please read chapters X and Y of Wayne Booth and others' The Craft of Research and chapters blank and blank of Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India and the student will go away to learn and later to discuss. There is never any sense of a dispute.
My interlocutor and I got off the wrong foot in the last FAC, and perhaps that has rendered him sensitive to criticism from me. My recent randomrandomly satirical, but ultimately well-meaning, musings on the talk page, I'm sure, did not help. But I'm reluctant to enterreenter the world of the FAC discussion. He is welcome to judge my reluctance to signify that he is in the right and that the content is plausible. But the responsibility of having judged so will be his. This will be my only post here. The volunteer may close this discussion in the manner in which he or she sees fit, but I hope they will appreciate my point of view. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC) Corrected in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Per the instructions at the top, the text above constitutes: CHARACTERS 1947 WORDS 336 SENTENCES 18. My interlocutor's text has: CHARACTERS 3075 WORDS 434 SENTENCES 23. He has added text twice, once on August 31, and again on September 3, altering his previous post and adding new text after I had made my post. (See here.) There is no indication of the two posts, no signature after the addition. Moreover, he neglected to inform me about this DRN discussion either before or after he proposed it here, either on the article talk page or on the user talk page. Had he done so before, I would have told him that I would not be a party to it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dimple Kapadia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Final Comment from Fowler&fowler: A vague sense of professional integrity prompts me to leave a note here: As my interlocutor has grounded his belief in a Wikipedia essay, may I point to two sections of the same essay Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!" and Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Social_sciences to be the nub of the issue here (to the extent biography and film history are broadly in history). This is where the methodology of arguments and the history of India I mentioned above are relevant. I have nothing to offer about a precise resolution (of the sort: should we speak in WP's voice or the subject's in this sentence). The issues in that article overspread much more. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I see too many final comments here. You said you're not going to come back but that's exactly what you're doing, as you did on the FAC (said you were leaving a final comment and still would be back in a day), and as you will probably do here despite seemingly refusing to be a party to the discussion. I'm happy you're finally reading WP:VNT, but I also cited WP:OR, which should be avoided, and WP:V, which should be followed, among other policies. The history of India has no relevance here at all, Kapadia's family's history does, as it is reported in reliable sources, to which the claims in question are properly referenced. This is exactly what Wikipedia is all about, a fair representation of information based on sources, and not personal opinion of what is likely or not. Shahid • Talk2me15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute concerns an impasse in the resolution of competing versions of a section in the above article (entitled Backgrounds) between myself and Mx. Granger (This is my version of the material while this is the opposing editor's version. Prior attempts to get the opposing user to respond to my objections ([14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]) were met with either non-responses which (deliberately or otherwise) doesn't address content issues ([19]) or a game-the-system response in which the opposing user attempts to shift the status quo by misrepresenting my position, ramming through his/her preferred changes to the main article on the basis of that misrepresentation and then addressing the extant objections that I had to his/her previous arguments. ([20]) Contributors will note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove. Contributors will also note that the two series of edit which introduced much of the deleted material (series 1 - [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and series 2 - [35], [36], [37], [38]) stood for a year (one year because this edit marked the introduction of the subsection that documents the relationship between China and the WTO) - for the entire time throughout the opposing editor was continuously active on the main article and did not once modify the content contained in the two series of edits until now.
On a procedural note, can I can inform the author of those two series of edits of this dispute even though he/she was not a direct participant to the previous debate on the talk page? I think that that editor should be made aware of the dispute that's going on here given the drastic changes that are being proposed to it. Flaughtin (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Reset the section of the article in question to the original state ([39]) until the outstanding issues as explicated on the talk page can be resolved first.
Summary of dispute by Mx. Granger
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The disagreement is about how much information the background section should contain, and how to write that section in a way that gives due weight. The solution with the most support is to generally limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war. The other three users in the discussion (including me) agree with this solution, but Flaughtin objects. —Granger (talk·contribs) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by ReconditeRodent
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thucydides411
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Light show
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
If the dispute concerns what Granger stated, that it should "limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war," then I would disagree. Note the current footnote #39 from the Washington Post explains why background is necessary to help readers understand the trade war: "There was a belief that China would develop a private economy that would prove compatible with the WTO system. Chinese leadership has made a political decision to do the opposite. So now we have to respond."
By deleting the entire section, the article is disconnected from it's causes. The section should naturally be restored. Some articles that I've edited all have detailed background sections: COVID-19 pandemic, Opioid epidemic in the United States, Thorium-based nuclear power. Without those, the articles would have been seriously defective.
As for how much background material is necessary, that would be a more relevant question, so I agree with Granger on that. But as for writing the section in a way that gives due weight, it seems that was properly done. The sources included opinions by Chinese leaders when they gave them publicly. If anything, our press, not being very pro-Trump, has given extra weight to China's opinions, along with complaints by various experts in the U.S. and Europe that the trade conflict was harming certain industries.
One important issue is that deleting thousands of words at one time, ie. diff-1 and diff-2, covering many sections, makes reviewing and editing nearly impossible. The guidelines require that edits, whether adding or deleting, be done in segments, so that other editors can review them. One of the reasons I didn't join the earlier discussions was because debates about 26 subjects at a time was a barrier. It only makes sense, IMO, to restore most of the section on background. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
China–United States trade war discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Before we begin in earnest, on a procedural note, can I can inform the author of the two aformentioned series of edits of this dispute even though he/she was not a direct participant to the previous debate on the talk page? I think that that editor should be made aware of the dispute that's going on here given the drastic changes that are being proposed to it. Flaughtin (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
dont make them an involved editor Can you clarify this? I don't understand what exactly it means. Can that edior participate in this discussion/debate despite not being included on the users involved list? If he/she can't then it doesn't seem like it makes sense for me to notify him/her. Flaughtin (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Light show Well said. I entirely agree with your position to restore most of the section on background. And I also entirely agree with your observation about that editor's problematic habit of removing reams of material (which that editor doesn't like) across multiple sections in one go. Just because the material in the section doesn't literally mention the current US-China trade war (how can it if it's background information?) doesn't mean it's not linked (directly or otherwise) to the trade war. While we can remove material from the background section (or more accurately migrate the material to the China and the World Trade Organization article), we do not of course mean removing nearly all of the material from the section, as is the case in the extant version of the background section. Determining what material should stay and what material should go is precisely the issue at hand, and as I said in my opening remarks, you'll note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove...which is why we are here.
The solution with the most support on the talk page is to leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war. This seems like a sensible solution to me, and is in the spirit of WP:PROPORTION.
Alternatively we can try to find a different solution that includes more of the tangentially related material. But the prior version of the section and User:Flaughtin's version of the section are both non-neutral. User:Thucydides411's version would be a better basis to work from if we're going to go that route. —Granger (talk·contribs) 06:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on your remarks:
1) Why did it take you one year for you to decide to remove the material? For the entire time throughout you were continuously active on the main article and did not once modify the content contained in background section until now, so why are you now suddenly changing your position?
2) The solution with the most support on the talk page is to leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war. This seems like a sensible solution to me, and is in the spirit of WP:PROPORTION. - yes, that is everybody's position. Please stop insinuating that my and Light Show's position is not that either.
3) Please be specific as I've asked you to a whole bunch of other times already. Which part doesn't belong, which part belongs and why?
4) PROPORTION is a knife that cuts both ways. By purging the background section of the previous material, the article now gives undue weight to your position that there is no background issue to speak of, which is in contravention to what the accompanying sources in the previous version of the section were all saying.
5) Alternatively we can try to find a different solution that includes more of the tangentially related material. - If that's the case then we must revert back to Light Show's version of the article per BRD as that was the original version of the article before all this edit warring began. Flaughtin (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Granger's suggestion, that we "leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war." If we did that literally, the result would likely be more non-neutral. I'm all for keeping it neutral. For instance, one my earliest edits to the article was to delete a large section of material that was clearly non-neutral and irrelevant. But it got worse, with edit wars eventually removing an entire non-neutral section about the Structure of China's political economy system.
But as for deleting all sourced WTO details from before the trade war, and relying instead on only recent sources, it shifts to a less neutral tone. For example, Newsweek, quoting Trump,
"They took advantage of us for many, many years. And I blame us, I don't blame them. I don't blame President Xi. I blame all of our presidents, and not just President Obama. You go back a long way. You look at President Clinton, Bush—everybody. They allowed this to happen, they created a monster… We rebuilt China because they get so much money."
Or relying on Time magazine: "China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest job theft in the history of our country...Clinton who lobbied for China’s disastrous entry into the World Trade Organization, and Hillary Clinton who backed that terrible, terrible agreement...China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO and I intend to enforce those rules and regulations." Along with the Washington Post:
"In 2010, trade attorney Robert Lighthizer told a congressional committee that optimistic Clinton administration forecasts for China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization in 2001 had not panned out. There was more than a little truth in that, and still is."
So while it's not difficult to find recent sources covering the earlier WTO, they explain with few actual facts and figures that were in the original background section, such as Clinton's hopeful comments. Like other wars, this one has a background that readers should have explained within the article.--Light show (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The only truth is that I have been referred to as an eco-colonialist by the Brazilian government to further their political purposes of deflecting their poor track record of protecting the Amazonas rainforest. However, this is an entirely false statement. Buying land in a foreign country to preserve rainforest is not colonialism. With regards to Green Grabbing - Eco-Colonialism and Green Grabbing are two defined terms with different meaning. Vidal’s article does not suggest that I am a Green Grabber; it only refers to the aforementioned statement by the Brazilian government. Therefore to refer to Johan Eliasch in relation to Green Grabbing is not only deliberately misleading but also libellous and defamatory. I believe I have now explained this very clearly, and please understand that there are implications of libel and defamation, so please be so kind to remove the reference to myself and Cool Earth under Green Grabbing without further delay. Firstly, the Guardian Article does not state that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber", so Wikipedia is inferring that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber". Secondly, the entire topic is essentially based on a single newspaper article which did not gain any traction. That is not responsible reporting. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia but it also has to be verifiable and accurate. Why doesn't Wikipedia write about the other individuals mentioned in the article? Why doesn't Wikipedia go to the Cool Earth Website? If Wikipedia copied the Guardian article in good faith, it would mention every individual mentioned in the article. The topic has been reported in malicious faith and without foundation. Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tsventon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
United Kingdom discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, This is regarding the edit that I made on section 3 of the article with an intent to re-write few lines in accordance to WP:NPOV and while I was in the process of adding appropriate citations backing my edit, my fellow User:NedFausa reverted my edits with this summary: " Undid revision 976665033 by Special:Contributions/ÆCE Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as "prime suspect" – this is a serious WP:BLP violation" without discussing whether or not I'm done editing the article or his concern with me beforehand. Within a minute or two,(not knowing of the revert then) I added reliable sources(these sources were already used for other citations on the same page.) verifying exactly what I wrote.
But just after adding the needed citations, when I explained myself to User:NedFausa he completely disregarded everything I said and started posting edit warring and WP:BLP violation templates on my as well as on the article's talk page even after I added all the needed citations.
I reverted the article once and he started claiming that I was indulged in an edit war which in actuality did not happen. Then came another User:Cyphoidbomb who again reverted my edit with the summary: (No.) and in response to that when I reverted his change with a summary: (Undid revision 976719161 by Cyphoidbomb (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) he then proceeded to revert the article again with a summary: (everted 1 edit by ÆCE (talk): BLP violation and poor grammar. (TW)).
Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like to know If am at fault here, as they're saying? Please let all of us know your decision and if I didn't do anything wrong, please suggest them to allow me to restore my edit and further improve it if needed.
Summary of dispute by NedFausa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Totally bogus dispute resolution issue. Note that every conversation that ÆCE points to relates to other editors telling them how problematic their edits are. Note that in the How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? section, ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion. Which content? this "minor" edit, this "minor" edit, and this third reversion, along with other comments on other talk pages.
ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput. That's INDEFENSIBLE. This is a sanctionable behaviour covered under ArbCom Wikipedia:General sanctions as they pertain to Indian subjects broadly construed. Or by WP:BLP in general and WP:BDP in specific as the topic in "dispute" has to do with the recent (2 months ago) death of Sushant Singh Rajput. For context, check Twitter and other social media outlets for #justiceforSSR, so you can see the attempts to coerce Wikipedians to change the suicide "determination" at Sushant Singh Rajput, and at other Wikipedia articles (Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, Rhea Chakraborty, even Sadak 2...etc.) are continuously assailed by these new accounts who have an agenda to push. ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of. So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification, rather than identifying what Chakraborty is a suspect of, which is what they were challenged to do. This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput.
I didn't say she killed her, I only said that she is "a prime suspect" in the case and here is the citation :[40] coming from the exact same source which is currently being used in the article.
ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of.
This is written on very top of the article[41], clearly explaining what she's being a suspect of.
"The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has questioned a number of people in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The CBI took over the case after a recommendation from the Bihar government on request from Rajput’s family.
In the 78 days since he passed away (since June 14), the CBI has narrowed down its probe and is now focussing on 14 people."
This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death.
I believe you should let them decide what "should" be done, which is why we have this board in the first place.
So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification
This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on wikipedia treat new users. It's even more upsetting when something like above comes from one of the administrators of the website. ♠ÆCE | Talk | 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhea Chakraborty discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– New discussion.