Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 147
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 140 | ← | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 |
Talk:Sri Lanka Matha#Tagore claim has been rebutted
Both parties have reached an agreement. Thanks to the participants for making the discussion productive. |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview There is a dispute on the Sri Lankan national anthem article Sri Lanka Matha as to who wrote it, Sri Lankan Ananda Samarakoon or Indian Rabindranath Tagore. This has been a source of dispute since April 2012 but before the current dispute all views about the anthem's origins were given and attributed in accordance with WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSBLOG, irrespective of whether they were opinion pieces/blogs or not. Last week BlueLotusLK edited the article so as to say that only Samarakoon wrote the anthem and that suggestion Tagore wrote the anthem was rubbish. This is a violation of WP:NPOV which requires all significant views that have been published by WP:RS to be included. There are many WP:RS which state that Tagore wrote the anthem, in full or in part. They can be found on the Talk Page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The issue has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. How do you think we can help? Decide if Wikipedia's policies require the inclusion that Tagore may have written Sri Lanka Matha. Summary of dispute by BlueLotusLKPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Peter K BurianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not one of the two users who are debating this issue, but one of them mentioned that I could post a comment here (on the Talk page). I am a totally unbiased guy in Canada, without any involvement in the country of Sri Lanka or (India). I am not acquainted in any way with either of the parties to this dispute. I did a great deal of research on the issue of who wrote the anthem. Afterwards, I edited that section of the article, with a series of citations from major news agencies, all from 2015 or 2016. I posted a copy of that revised version on the Talk page for easy reference. It's under ORIGIN, in the topic == Finished editing - origin and use of the Tamil version of the anthem == Frankly, I am surprised there is any dispute on this topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC) Talk:Sri Lanka Matha#Tagore claim has been rebutted discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Involved Parties #1Sources saying Ananda Samarakoon wrote and composed "Namo Namo Mata" aka "Sri Lanka Matha":
BlueLotusLK (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Here are some sources which state that Tagore wrote the anthem, in full or in part:
--obi2canibetalk contr 21:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion #2
References
|
Talk:Reformed Political_Party#Theocracy_should_be_removed
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Some want to say that the Reformed Political Party (SGP) advocates "theocracy" which is defined as "a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission" by Webster's dictionary. No sources are given that are neutral and all sources cited refer to attack pieces that violate WP:Core content policies and Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources. Also, when I and another editor tried to remove it, I was asked to prove a negative by citing sources that show the SGP does NOT want a theocracy Argument from Ignorance. There is no reliable source that SGP wants a theocracy WP: V and putting it on the article is misinformation and a smear against the SGP. -Autospark Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page and personal messages. How do you think we can help? Protect the edit. Summary of dispute by AutosparkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Reformed Political_Party#Theocracy_should_be_removed discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Al-Ahbash#Qibla
General close. There doesn't appear to be interest in moderated discussion. Any further discussion can be at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Please note that the Author had wrote "Qiblah" page dispute to confuse us about the real page issue [Al-Ahbash] page where I found contradicting information listed by authors who share or came from the same background. I tried editing by removing the wrong information but the authors put them back. Then I tried one to two lines comments under each subject then i was accused of warring. So I started the talk but other authors were not interested. One major issue is about a person name [Tariq Ramadan] who has for many is the head of what they call themselves Muslim Brotherhood or Hizb Al-Ekhwan. He has conflicts with a lot of groups, so other authors decided to use his comments about the group [Al-Ahbash] . Tariq Ramadan comments about the Al-Ahbash groups is irrelevant because he is in conflict with the group, and since his Brotherhood groups will use all kind of methods deadly and not deadly against regime's changes where Al-Ahbash is the opposite they use non-violent methods and will not be involved in regime's changes. So I have requested removal of his comments as bios and the authors are bios too.
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried the Talk but did not work. Please examine Al-Ahbash page which is the real issue page, unfortunately, the author or authors have written "Qiblah" page for more confusion. The page that I found contradicting information and tried to editing it is called [Al-Ahbash] article. How do you think we can help? By examining my point of view vs the other authors point of views which are not willing to change. There are wars in the Middle East, There are a lot of groups and many are using Islam in wrong way to promote violence and regime's changes. Since I am not going into politics, I just would want to show readers that Tariq Ramadan comments about non violence groups which are know to defend themselves is irrelevant especially from a person who is the head of an organization that promotes violence. Summary of dispute by McKhanSummary of dispute by BarelviSummary of dispute by MezzoMezzoI absolutely reject Chabaano's claim that attempts to mediate the dispute have already been tried on the talk page in question. He replied only a few times; McKhan replied only a few times; I literally only posted a single comment. Discussion there is far from over and there's no indication at all that the topics under discussion require a case at DRN. This appears to be a mistaken understanding of the DR policy by a new user. A real discussion needs to be attempted, in good faith, before it's declared fruitless. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Talk:Al-Ahbash#Qibla discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:John Fleming_(American_politician)
Closed in another forum. The filing party went to the edit-warring noticeboard and was blocked by boomerang for 24 hours. If any of the other editors want to discuss here, there may file a new case here. Otherwise resume discussion at the article talk page (and the filing party may resume discussion there when coming off block). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In this article I have chosen to add important information that was left out of a discussion on Rep. John Fleming's page regarding an incident in 2012. I have not removed any of the previous content. But, the existing content was not from a NPOV. Important legal and legislative facts were totally missing. I added that important content and it was well-resourced. Two editors working together, or one and his sock puppet account it appears, reverted every word of my edit, together 4 times. He/they have brought in friends to attack me as the violator because I re-reverted back to my added content. I would appreciate resolution to this dispute. I am not asking to remove his/their content, only allow my factual content that provides a truthful, honest, balanced and neutral perspective of Fleming's statements and actions based on the facts at the time. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I posted on the a resolution board that he/they have violated the 3RR rule and properly noticed him/them. I believe it to be one editor using two accounts because when I am emailed with their posts, oth editors' notices take me to Neutrality's talk page. At the very least, if it is two, they are working in concert. One even admitted that he "knows" the other. How do you think we can help? I would like to have the important additional information to be included. I would be happy to get a number of opinions, but I think the article reflects only one perspective by eliminating essential facts in the discussion. Ultimately, it is crafted to make Rep. Fleming to appear to be an anti-gay bigot. However, his actions were based on the facts in existence at the time and should properly reflect that. Summary of dispute by NeutralityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by and GamalielPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:John Fleming_(American_politician) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:British_people_of_Jewish_descent.2C_not_Category:British_Jews
Closed as not likely to be a productive topic for moderated discussion. Either the category should be added, or it should not be added. The main function of this noticeboard is compromise, and compromise isn't really in order here. A decision is in order. One editor, the filing party, wants to add the category; other editors disagree. A Request for Comments is the most reasonable next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview I am claiming that a WP category relating to a persons descent can be added without the need of some loosely defined self-identification criteria Have you tried to resolve this previously? Neutral point of view! How do you think we can help? Neutral point of view! Summary of dispute by BradvPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:British_people_of_Jewish_descent.2C_not_Category:British_Jews discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Leposavi%C4%87#.22Albanik.22
Closed. This seems to be a yes/no type of question about the name and alternate names that does not lend itself to moderated discussion but can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The discussion is held if should the alternative name of Leposavic (which is Albanik) be mentioned in the article or not. The alternative Albanian and Serbian name of the settlements are mentioned in the lead in every single article about a city or a municipality in Kosovo. This is done to avoid any possible conflict and because both names are used in offical documents. Albanik is the name used by Kosovo government in offical documents.[1] Marc Sommers and Peter Buckland elaborate on Albanik.[2] The lead should include both names used in offical documents. References
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have discussed on the talk page. How do you think we can help? The dispute can be solved by adding the alternative name Albanik in the lead. Summary of dispute by ZoupanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will repeat what has already been said. "Albanik" is purely a provocation, a failed attempt to erase traces of Serbian culture by Albanianizing the name of a Serb-majority settlement (the municipality is inhabited by 96% Serbs according to OSCE). The Albanological Institute suggested the name for Republic of Kosovo use (as was done with Srbica/Skenderaj, Uroševac/Ferizaj), but it was not adopted (Albanian-language name/transliteration is still Leposaviq). 'Albanik' has only found itself in a paper on mining economy and "some maps". Ktrimi991 falsely concludes that
Straightforward.--Zoupan 21:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Clear Talk:Leposavi%C4%87#.22Albanik.22 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
There are several official documents of the government of Kosovo which use “Albanik”. Government official documents:
Media:
Scholarship:
Public services:
The sources presented by Zoupan mention and elaborate on Albanik. I can present additional sources too. Zoupan claims that Albanik is “purely a provocation, a failed attempt to erase traces of Serbian culture by Albanianizing the name of a Serb-majority settlement (the municipality is inhabited by 96% Serbs according to OSCE)”. Bosniaks and Croats say the same thing about Republiks Srpska. If we follow the same logic then the Republika Srpska article should be deleted. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
So, the Republic of Kosovo and all major international organizations uses the neutral Leposavić/Leposaviq. "Albanik" falls under WP:UNDUE; we should not use a newly-composed provocative nationalist (anti-Serbian) name found in extremely small instances. There is no logic in that. The Western authors did explain the nature of this "alternative" name – it is Albanian nationalist, meant to provoke. Do I need to repeat that it is not in official use?--Zoupan 22:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
|
User talk:72.141.9.158
Closed. The filing party appears to want to make edits that other editors disagree with. They may use a Request for Comments if they want to persuade the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Users involved
Dispute overview My edits at swing state and a user's talk page have been consistently reverted, for no reason. Many users deleted my edit at the first page with no relevant edit summaries, and many different users reverted my edits at the latter. No administrator has yet replied to my request. As none of the users involved have replied on my talk page, or theirs, where necessary, I have been unable to contact them further over the last few days. I would like to add my comments and edits back, but it keeps getting reverted and my attempts to contact them have been in vain. Please see my talk page for the actual discussion and further details. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Messaging them on their talk page, on my talk page, alerting an administrator (although that was only today), making my intentions clear in further edits. However, they have not responded but continue to revert my edits. How do you think we can help? Notify the editors involved and add my information back in, as long as they have no valid and legitimate objections. If that's the case, I would be happy to discuss it with them, but only if they will actually engage with me. Summary of dispute by Beyond My KenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not be participating. All problems stem from the IPs unwillingness to follow policy, as I've painstakingly pointed out to him. IP has been told to discuss content dispute on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TheroadislongPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User is edit warring and editing without consensus to remove a section which is properly sourced, because they don't like it. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bbb23Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MarnetteDPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by White Arabian FillyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not involved in the content dispute over on the article. I was patrolling the IP contribs page for vandalism and happened to see an IP reverting a registered user who I know by reputation on MarnetteD's talk. I've seen that kind of thing before and it's almost always some kind of personal attack, so I reverted. I didn't know about the ongoing dispute, so I'm sorry if I made it worse by my edit. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User talk:72.141.9.158 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:American Legislative_Exchange_Council#Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22
The editors are commenting on each other (contributors) rather than on content. I am closing this case without prejudice, in that the editors can refile and start over after a few more days of talk page discussion if they want only to discuss neutral point-of-view content. This is a content dispute resolution forum and comments about specific editors (such as to say that an editor is lying) are out of place. Complaints about editor conduct should be taken to WP:ANI, or, since this is an area subject to discretionary sanctions, to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview - Editors on the page above have reverted my submission, I made corrections needed and still got reverted - Either my newness on WP, personal behavior or quoting a policy without providing any relevance are used as a case for reversion Have you tried to resolve this previously? I honestly tried to respond to all their "objective criticism of the actual content submitted" as much as possible but they continuously keep diverting the discussion towards other issues. How do you think we can help? Let me be fully upfront and warn you that, sadly, the topic at hand is extremely political and divisive on all sides and I'd hate for WP to be yet another political front. A person with expertise on the topic at hand and who is known for objectivity is what I'd settle for any day. WP and we all lose even if the third party just supports my content because of their political ideologies. I also wanted help in seeing if the content submitted should be separated into its own page. Thank you. Talk:American Legislative_Exchange_Council#Section_.22Convening_the_first_U.S._state_constitutional_convention.22 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I think this DRN referral is premature. I am not opposed to including material along the lines that Calexit has proposed, but it needs to be better sourced and the content needs to be adjusted to reflect those better sources. I started explaining this at article talk but Chris and I were met with personal attacks, sarcasm, and edit warring. Calexit is brand new and has potential to become a productive contributor, if they are open to learning our policies and guidelines (both content and conduct). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Chris troutmanThe word "calexit" refers to a hope by some that California will secede from the Union. This is in keeping with what the American Legislative Exchange Council's goal of increased states rights as Mark Levin described in his book, which is why I become concerned about a new editor called "Calexit" now pushing this content onto the article. The content itself is UNDUE because it focuses too narrowly on a few very RECENTISM-driven media reports with heavy use of external links to draw attention to conventionofstates.com. Calexit (the editor) is making arguments more based on cognitive biases than our guidelines and policies. This appearance at DRN could be interpreted as WP:FORUMSHOPPING because they don't like the pushback they've received at the talk page. While I understand admins don't want to wade into a content issue I think a BOOMERANG is in order. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Summary of hilarity by Calexit
I can go on but, Robert, I think it's far more productive imho if you can either guide me into the process of creating a new page for this content since its scope goes far beyond the page's topic, or to where the EXIT sign is. Thanks WP! Calexit (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Comments by coordinatorThis seems to be getting off to an unpleasant start. I am troubled by the comments of both User:Chris troutman and User:Calexit. First, Chris Troutman thinks that a boomerang may be in order. What is meant by that? The boomerang essay has to do with filings at conduct forums such as WP:ANI, where a disruptive editor who files a complaint may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. What is Chris Troutman proposing? This is not a conduct forum, and I don't see a conduct issue. Second, User:Calexit seems to be treating this proceeding as a joke. If it is a joke, it is because it isn't being taken seriously. Also, Calexit refers to creating a new page for new content, but appears to be expressing strong opinions. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and presents opinions as they are seen by reliable sources. What exactly is Calexit asking? Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion of how to improve content? If so, this is the right place. If not, this thread can be closed. Will the two editors please clarify what they want? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Reply
More comments by coordinatorDiscussion here is voluntary. I have never said this before, but it also requires that the parties take it seriously. Voluntary discussion requires the participation of two or more parties. I haven't heard whether either of the other two parties besides Calexit wants to take part in moderated discussion. User:Calexit appears to be saying above that they want moderated discussion and to prove it they will proceed. It doesn't work like that. Slow down, please, User:Calexit. Does anyone else want moderated discussion? Will User:Chris troutman please explain their boomerang comment? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC) ReplyAgain, just to confirm, I'm very open to a moderated discussion. Calexit (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Reply by Chris troutmanCalexit already admits to pushing a POV. ReplyI'm assuming that sentence is void of POV and as such clears you from that accusation. Or, perhaps, you are of a higher status of existence that is beyond POV as understood by us peasants. There's actually no citation at that sentence whatsoever, there's an external link that hyperlinks "Convention of States" to "Conventionofstates.com". Do Wikipedians call that citation now? Hmm, some good news and bad news here. Good news is that there's a citation, bad news is that I mixed up the citations of the first and second paragraphs. That sentence comes, almost verbatim, from In These Times article's second section, fifth paragraph. I'm sure you have read that cited article and aren't just cluelessly responding? Wow, talk about having no POV to push. So I shouldn't quote a Title of an op-ed someone wrote? And I shouldn't quote a meager staffer because CT deems what he says as spouting the partisan propaganda? Thank you for that kind insult. I expect nothing less from a metamoral person like yourself. To make life easier, CT is referring to the talk here. When "Calexit makes an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. DrFleischman replied" with: You're not going to obtain consensus for your edits that way. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and lay off the personal attacks and sarcasm please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) Nowhere do I see a reply in the negative or a quotation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTSEven more kind insults! If I was a WP admin I'd be worried by this last part. CT has certainly proven himself to be a neutral, POV-free kind of guy. Calexit (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:List of_Indian_Christians
Closed. There are several problems with this filing, including a generally hostile tone. The most serious problem is implied legal threats. The filing party is cautioned that legal threats on Wikipedia will result in an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview the user Sitush has been reported as "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" in past and he/she has attempted to deleted his/her recent view history after I confronted him/her. the said user has been actively involved in editing pages involving caste and religion in India, I have by painstaking research contributed names of Indian origin Christians in the"list of Indian christians" but time and again the said contributions have been deleted by Sitush, Sitush activities on Wikipedia shows that he has been sedulously involved in editing/vandalizing the constitutions of genuine wiki users especially in matters involving caste and religion in India on a regular basis, noticing his activities and vandalization I have requested Sitush against persisting in these activities, the editions done by me are genuine names of Christians like vijay hazare , chandu borde ,amrit kaur and other prominent names who have their independent pages with reference/citations that they are Indian Christians however Sitush whose past activities are highly doubtful has time and again vandalized my contributions despite me explaining the reasons in support on the page talk forum. these kind of activities are very common in India where politicians hire such handlers to scuttle truth and repaint history which is a serious concern and against the very spirit of wikipedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have sufficiently talked with sitush and given him sufficient notice of cease and desist How do you think we can help? vandalism and attack on a tiny Minorities like Christians in India by distorting historical facts is a very common phenomenon, facts like Indian Christian contribution in freedom struggle and their participation in other fields on international neutral forums like Wikipedia is thus very essential. A sedulous campaign is going on by politicians with the help of such social media handlers to scuttle this truth and fact from being highlighted. Hence your intervention Summary of dispute by SitushPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:List of_Indian_Christians discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan
This dispute has been resolved on the page talk page. Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) 03:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) divided into two factions late 2016 when one its senior member Farooq Sattar disassociated the party from MQM founder and chief Altaf Hussain. Media reports says that "MQM is registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan in the name of Dr Farooq Sattar" as since 2002 which make him leader of MQM. Farooq Sattar also stated "MQM is Pakistan. The MQM is registered in Pakistan and recognises the laws and Constitution of Pakistan." But on the other hand, Altaf Hussain claim he's the leader of MQM and dismissed Faroor Sattar from the party membership. Media label Altaf Hussain as the leader of MQM’s London-based leader while Farooq Sattar as the leader of MQM Pakistan. Now the question is do we really need a separate page Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan? I tried to resolve the issue on MQM Pakistan talk page but did not work. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan How do you think we can help? Not sure. Summary of dispute by Rameezraja001ScenarioMQM has been divided into two factions. MQM's founder Altaf Hussain (Pakistani politician)'s faction and the dissident faction which identifies its leader as Farooq Sattar (parliamentary leader of MQM) under the name MQM-Pakistan who was a deputy convener of the original MQM. Altaf Hussain (Pakistani politician) being the founder and leader has dismissed the faction and demanded resignations but the MQM-Pakistan insists that it is the original MQM and it has dismissed the founder and leader Altaf Hussain. MQM-Pakistan has changed MQM's constitution which eliminates the founder from the party and has also claimed to dismiss the convener Nadeem Nusrat as well. Nadeem Nusrat doesn't identify with Farooq Sattar's faction and embraces authority of Altaf Hussain. So in short we have two distinct parties working independent. MQM-London is not the name recognized by the founder of MQM and this name is only tagged by the pakistani media, there is no official declaration for this name, while Farooq Sattar does call his faction by another name that is MQM-Pakistan. My pointsSaqib insists that the two MQM pages must be merged as one and to maintain status quo (his own words). I totally agree with him, but the problem is, he wants to change the leader name from Altaf Hussain to Farooq Sattar (as he thinks that farooq sattar is the true leader of MQM), and convener as Amir Khan. My opinion is, for the status quo, we should not change the leader's name and maintain altaf hussain as the leader as he is the founder of MQM and constitutionally its his authority to nominate for MQM leadership. His second in command, Nadeem Nusrat also doesn't recognize Farooq sattar's decisions and has expelled him from the party. My opinion according to the facts is, Altaf Hussain and Nadeem Nusrat being senior most leaders can't be over ruled by a junion leader who now claims to lead the party. It was Saqib who started disturbing the MQM's page by change the MQM's infobox, and then changing the MQM's page name into MQM-London. I then decided that the matter can be resolved by making two separate pages for two separate MQMs, so i changed redirected page of MQM-Pakistan into a separate individual page and made a separate info box for farooq sattar's faction. I think that this is the most amicable and reasonable settlement to the issue but Saqib insists on keep changing the pages according to his wishes, but to be honest its not very reasonable. I therefore insist that both the pages be maintained as it is and not merged them into one. and if merged it will generate a vast conflict regarding history, infobox, party name, websites, further expansion of the article based on two conflicting resources. As far as Saqib's ECP party registration source is concerned, the party has been registered with Farooq Sattar's name since 2002 (as he claims). My point of view is Farooq Sattar back in 2002 did accept Altaf Hussain as Leader and this shows that party can be registered in his name but that alone doesn't guarantee his leadership authorization. All info regarding MQM can be verified from MQM's website Talk:Muttahida Quami Movement Pakistan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Emmett Till
A Request for Comments has been started concerning the issue of the first paragraph of this article. This issue will be decided by the RFC (which takes precedence over discussion here). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This page, which discusses the horrific murder of Emmett Till, has had a patently racist and anti-historical lede. The two introductory sentences state Till's identity, the fact that he was murdered, and the statement that he "reportedly flirted with a white woman." This is unacceptable because: 1) It elides acknowledging the central fact that Till's murder was linked to systemic violence against African Americans in the Jim Crow South; 2) It ascribes blame to a CHILD MURDER VICTIM for his death by focusing on the "flirtation"; 3) It denies the fact that recent scholarship (cited in the article!) has shown that the woman whom Till "reportedly flirted with" lied throughout her testimony. Have you tried to resolve this previously? See multiple edits and talk page. How do you think we can help? Take action to note that this is a space where racist ideas about black "hypersexuality" and an ahistorical refusal to place Till's murder in context are being perpetuated. Summary of dispute by TmerlisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Magnolia677Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GandydancerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JudgeRMPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I hope you people here don't mind, but I've fixed the names so they're separate. I have also added my name to this since I'm involved. There are also other users involved in this, but I will leave that up to the filer to add them if they wish to. As for the actual issue at hand, I will comment on this later, and feel free to revert if what I did was wrong or out of process. JudgeRM (talk to me) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Talk:Emmett Till discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Chipmunkdavis#WP:WIKIHOUNDING
As stated, this appears to be a conduct dispute. Report harassment or hounding at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. If there is a content issue, discuss it on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Description of the dispute is here ► Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute_over_removed_material Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened discussion on his talk page and tried to solve the dispute. I tried to explaine with arguments but no improvement. How do you think we can help? I need a third party and admins involvement because I do not see any chance to find a solution. Summary of dispute by ChipmunkdavisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:Chipmunkdavis#WP:WIKIHOUNDING discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:_Yiannopoulos_is_Jewish_-_adequate_sources_verify_this_and_should_not_be_removed_until_proven_otherwise
Filing user was forumshopping, and it was determined on the |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by RudiLefkowitz on 18:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos - Hello. I have a source from The Forward newspaper that states that Mr. Yiannopoulos is Jewish. Furthermore, in other sources that verify this, it is Mr. Yiannopoulos stating that he is, through his mother/grandmother, Jewish. The original and current Jewish definition is that as long as one’s mother, grandmother, great-grandmother is Jewish, then you are Jewish. Very simple. Regardless of disbelief or losing the technical 'status' of being a Jew by adopting another faith or even born in to another faith, you are still a Jew (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/beliefs/beliefs_1.shtml) So the claim of being Jewish can be verified through sources and the definition itself, Who is a Jew?. I have cited WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. So the question: Is my edit adding Category:British Jews or even Category:British people of Jewish descent justified and valid? PS. From the Jewish perspective it does not matter if Mr. Yiannopoulos has been born into another religion or embraced another religion , as long as his blood affinity is matrilineal. Ethnicity and religion are intertwined in Judaism. Thank you. Regards Have you tried to resolve this previously? Citing source, Citing Wikipedia policy, Law & practice concerning the subject. Trying to correct be and civil in personal responses. How do you think we can help? Applying WP policy. If valid source backs adding a category, it should not be removed. Comments by MjolnirPantsOkay, I am (one of) the other editor(s) involved. The other two are Only in death and Ad Orientem. All three of us oppose this edit. I have a few things to point out here:
With that in mind, I do not consent to any DRN process that discusses whether we should violate our policies against original research and verifiability in order to appease one editor's religious sensibilities. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Ad OrientemRudiLefkowitz appears to be on some sort of crusade to have Milo Yiannopoulos categorized as a Jew. His argument is predicated almost entirely on Jewish Law as generally accepted among Orthodox Jewish Rabbis and scholars which holds Judaic identity is conferred by heredity through the mother. However Mr. Yiannopoulos self identifies as Roman Catholic. Mr. Yiannopoulos' alleged anti-antisemitism is, from my perspective, neither here nor there. It has always been the practice on Wikipedia that when assigning a religious affiliation we accept whatever they declare to be their faith group, if any is indicated. I also need to note here that RudiLefkowitz editing history, both on the article and its talk page has been tendentious. So much so, that it was a factor in my recent decision to invoke Discretionary Sanctions and impose WP:1RR editing restrictions on the article. And I further note, that this appeal to WP:DRN was made after I felt obliged to issue a formal caution to Rudi regarding his disruptive editing. In closing I wish to remind the participants this article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions and at this point I believe Rudi's editing on this topic has ceased to be constructive. Beyond that I would merely encourage that anyone concerned review the talk page discussion thread. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#Adding_Category:_Yiannopoulos_is_Jewish_-_adequate_sources_verify_this_and_should_not_be_removed_until_proven_otherwise discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Confirmed that all parties specified by MjolnirPants have been notified MereTechnicality (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Kalhor (Iranian_tribe)
Closed as incompletely filed. After five days, there hasn't been a complete list of editors. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request with a complete list of editors can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I added some authentic resources that has referred to Lurish identity of Kalhor tribe without deleting any other citations about other citations and theories. I wonder why a user deleted them frequently?! I asked him the reason but he continued to edit warring several times. Please have look to the page and citations mentioned there to clarify our dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked the admins to help and protect the page and it is protected now. How do you think we can help? I think Lurish-origin theory should not be manipulated because is not pleasant for some ethnocentric oriented users. A lot of Kalhor tribe consider their origin as of Lurish people, a lot of historians as well. Both Lurs and Kurds of Iranic originally and this trend is very usual in Iran. In case of Laks people in Iran this issue is true too. Summary of dispute by HosseiniranPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kalhor (Iranian_tribe) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Allahabad Airport&action=history
Closed as improperly filed and as premature. The filing doesn't properly list the article or the other editors, but it appears that there hasn't been discussion at the article talk page. Discuss at the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, this case can be refiled here, properly listing the editors and the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The user LeoFrank has been constantly reverting and deleting the Central Air Command Section of the page. Allahabad Airport is primarily known for the same, and then secondarily for civil operations. I seek an investigation/discussion. I personally belong to the place of interest being discussed, and an outsider should not unnecessary deprive information regarding one's regional page of interest. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Central Air Command itself is a separate Wikipedia page and a brief about it at Allahabad Airport is appropriate. The user LeoFrank says its not 'reliable'. The user has been rude and used disruptive threat talks. We work on Wikiepdia for collaborative efforts and not authoritarian power. I don't want dispute with the user, rather I would need to resolve the issue formally, in terms of good words. How do you think we can help? Decide whether Central Air Command section should be included or not. It has been on the page for long enough. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Allahabad Airport&action=history discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:JJBers
Closed for now. Discussion is in progress on the article talk page. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview At issue is the use of {{TOC left}} or Template:TOC left. The article in which I would like to use this template is Norwalk, Connecticut. Between the 'table of contents' or TOC and the 'Infobox settlement' is a large river of whitespace which could be remedied simply by the appropriate placement of the above template. My edit to do so has been reverted by the above user twice. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have indicated WP:MOS, WP:STYLEVAR, MOS:STYLEVAR, MOS:VAR, WP:WHITE, WP:TOC How do you think we can help? I seek an alternative remedy to the whitespace problem in the Norwalk, Connecticut article as a means to bring about an agreement among any involved editors. User talk:JJBers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Lee Joon-gi
Closed as premature. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Report sockpuppetry at SPI. (Do not make idle sockpuppet allegations.) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There has been extensive discussion on the talk page about the title of the category "2014-Lowly rated dramas". However later, the discussion was halted because all of the users found participating in the discussion were sock-puppets of one account. Yet, a new IP user is reverting edits, claiming there was a consensus reached. It seems like the sockpuppet user is back again trying to exert WP:Ownership. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As seen on talk page. How do you think we can help? Opening a new discussion where other users would participate. Summary of dispute by 203.87.156.98Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by xdelunaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TreysandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lee Joon-gi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Telephone number
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Also note the comments by the volunteers in the closed discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview the user involved keep remove "*" and "#" from possible permutation of telephone number Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have add the picture link, but the user involved neglected How do you think we can help? to add "*" and "#" to possible permutation of telephone number Summary of dispute by KbrosePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Telephone number discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:List of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995
Closed as already pending in another forum. The filing party has also initiated an Articles for Deletion discussion. Also, it appears that the filing party wants to delete multiple lists of Playboy Playmates. An appropriate forum should be found for centralized discussion, rather than the current strategy which appears to consist of using as many venues as possible. I suggest that Village pump (proposals) would be an appropriate venue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC). |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Playboy playmate page, no clear understanding and agreement of BLP, and whether playboy.com, and imdb.com are useful sources for BLPS. Have you tried to resolve this previously? talk page. How do you think we can help? if there are other editors who can comment would be appreciated. Summary of dispute by K.e.coffmanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Guy1890Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RonzFirst, if we were going attempt bring the dispute here, the request needs a rewrite: It should identify all the involved editors and they should be contacted. It needs to clearly identify the issue(s) along with the policies and guidelines that apply. (Discussions so far have mentioned reliability of sources, notability concerns, BLP...) Even if this request were rewritten, it's probably too early to try this venue. Editors would like to treat Richterer11111 as a vandal, and it's unclear if attempts to focus on the content and policies will even get responses at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Comment on dispute by NeilNI'm not involved in this dispute beyond looking at it from an admin POV when it was brought to WP:ANEW. However it seems clear that this involves a whole class of articles instead of a single page. Please see this. --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Talk:List of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Pieter Bruegel_the_Elder
Conduct dispute is also pending in another forum, WP:SPI. After the sockpuppet investigation is resolved, any surviving parties who wish moderated dispute resolution may file a new request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved C.Gesualdo (talk · contribs) Freshacconci (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is twofold: a minor and a major one. Johnbod made edits on the Pieter Bruegel the Elder article and changed two things that are contestable. Firstly the minor dispute, namely the claim that '[Pieter Bruegel] was the most significant artist of Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting'. This is of course subjective and not WP:NEUTRAL (it may as well be Hieronymus Bosch). Secondly, the major dispute is the discussion concerning Bruegel's place of birth. Johnbod writes that the town of Bruegel 'does not fit any known place'. This is however false and contradicting to what Manfred Sellink, the main authority on Bruegel's work, wrote (Sellink, 2007), the RKD (https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/13292) and the primary source itself: Karel van Mander (http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/mand001schi01_01/mand001schi01_01_0221.php). I've made it clear to Johnbod that he's using information based on outdated sources (Van Bastelaer, 1907), but he's not accepting my criticism and keeps on using the Grove (that probably refers to Orenstein (2001), who in turn refers to Van Bastelaer). This dispute is essentially a dispute of the precedence of sources. I said to Johnbod that Sellink is explicitly attacking the idea that Breugel is not the town in Brabant and that the RKD gives priority to Sellink. Possibly because Orenstein isn't doing original research and instead refers to a source dating from 1907, but also because the main source - van Mander - explicitly refers to Brabant. In terms of content, it has to do with the fact that van Mander specifies Breugel als the town in Brabant and isn't at all talking about the town of Bree, which is situated in the Prince-Bishopric of Liege and is only called 'Breda' in Latin. NOTE: the original version of the article did include Breugel as a possibility: see the article version of 15:14, 2 February 2017. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to give reasonable arguments in combination with reliable sources (such as the RKD and Manfred Sellink, the main authority on Bruegel's work). How do you think we can help? There's suspicion of me being a sock puppet for another user and I have also been accused of 'village patriotism'. I made it clear on several occasions that this is not the case. However, the suspicion is still there and I fear that this is part of the problem. An intervention of an objective third party might therefore be helpful to resolve the dispute. Talk:Pieter Bruegel_the_Elder discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Telephone number
As stated, this is a conduct dispute involving claims of censorship. DRN does not handle conduct matters. This may be refiled focusing only on the content, not on the conduct, but the filing party would be well served to both read the comments in the collapsed section below before doing so and to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview the users involved keep remove "*" and "#" from possible permutation of telephone number Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have add picture link and telecommunication vendor links, but the users involved neglected How do you think we can help? per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored, stop the user involved from censoring content Summary of dispute by KbrosePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by IdreamofJeaniePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Telephone number discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq
Participants appear to have reached an agreement |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by JDC808 on 08:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On the article WrestleMania 33, an upcoming professional wrestling pay-per-view, we are having a dispute on whether or not a particular match has been confirmed for the event. Some editors believe that the sources that they have provided confirm the match. Others disagree based on those same sources, claiming that those sources actually do not confirm it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy talk page discussion is all. How do you think we can help? Read over the discussion and the sources, and provide your own opinion on the matter that could hopefully resolve this issue. Summary of dispute by WarMachineWildThing4 users have agreed the match should be placed on the article and the sources are vaild. Only 2 users don't want it there. As far as I'm concerned JDC808 has become OWNISH of the article refusing to leave the match and refrences even after admitting himself he knew the match was taking place and has been the only one editting the article while this discussion is taking place after convincing an admin to lower the lock down that was placed so he could edit the article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 09:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by DanePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TheDeviantProPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sc30002001Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by LM2000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:WrestleMania 33#Big Show VS. Shaq discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network
Only one editor participated in the discussion, and the other party has had its account deleted for vandalism |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The page Cristo Rey Network was edited by someone who works in the Network but I have cleaned up all that seems to me like advert and made the independent references more precise and pointed. But I have not been able to satisfy the person who keeps replacing the same three tags, I believe unfairly. The person has only a talk page, no user page, as indicated below. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Repeated improvements to article and request for help toward improvements on his/her talk page, on my talk page, and on the article talk page. How do you think we can help? Someone explain to Justeditingtoday what "common sense" application of citation criteria means in the area of secondary schools where media coverage is not exhaustive and the institutions' websites can generally be trusted where claims are credible. Severe tagging of this very popular model of education for the poor is not going to "make Wikipedia thrive," but rather create more sceptics and critics for Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by User talk:JusteditingtodayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I was just now notified that this discussion was even happening. Contrary to what Jzsj claimed, no effort was made to notify me about this by him (and the fact that I have a redlinked user page is irrelevant). I repeatedly explained to Jzsj on my talk page and his that none of his edits alter the fact that the bulk of the text was added by someone named BrendaMorrisCristoReyNetwork which shows a clear conflict of interest. That tag is necessary per policy. Jssj actually added more WP:PRIMARY sources here and unreliable sourcing like here (PRweb is not a reliable source) and used that as a basis to remove all the tags. Now two brand new single purpose accounts have appeared, The1pes and Anna1985, the first of which immediately set out to remove the tags on the page. There is a complete conflict of interest here with obviously affiliated editors attempting to control the article to make it more promotional. I desired actually constructive edits per policy before the tags were removed. Since that apparently couldn't happen, I have no desire to fight a sock army over the page. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC) User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
*Volunteer comment and closure I have now taken another look at the article and it looks like I made a mistake, Jzsj— references were indeed added to the article for that section and the removal of that tag appears to have been done correctly. My apologies. I don't know how I missed this. Anyhow, given that the other party, Justeditingtoday, has so far declined to participate, it no longer seems like we have a dispute. I am going to go ahead and mark this case as resolved. If Justeditingtoday changes his/her mind and wants to participate at this point, I will be glad to change the case status and continue to try to resolve the dispute— except that I just looked up the user's userpage, and it appears the account has been deleted for vandalism which means he/ she cannot edit this page anyway. KDS4444 (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate
Filer conceded to consensus advice at TP, and no further discussion about the dispute has ensued. Atsme📞📧 10:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Differing views as to the etymologically accurate definition of antisemitism. Consensus is that anti-Semitism is exclusively Jewish-centric yet there are no cited historical references that define antisemitism as exclusively referring to Jewry therefore etymological accuracy should dictate that the definition be generalized according to the etymological root--being Semitic--people. I propose that the definition of anti-Semitism be change to include all Semitic people who are victims of non-Aryan prejudice and recommend that historical emphasis be placed upon the Jewish people immediately following this definition while simultaneously acknowledging the anti-semitic sentiments suffered by the Arab people and other Semitic races. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to discuss points of fact that Arab people are also victims of anti-Semitism. I understand that there is a warning acknowledging Arabs are also Semitic. This is not the same as acknowledging Arabs are also victims of anti-Semitism, which the Jewish-centric definition refuses to acknowledge. How do you think we can help? Objectively consider the position respective to policies regarding definitions. Summary of dispute by El_CConsensus is that Arabs (and others) may be Semites, but Anti-Arabism is not known as Antisemitism. El_C 08:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NeilNQuoting El C: "Cite reliable sources and gain consensus for your changes". No sources have been provided and so we can't really proceed to the gain consensus stage. --NeilN talk to me 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|