Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 157

Archive 150

←

Archive 155

Archive 156

Archive 157

Archive 158

Archive 159

Archive 160

Talk:Patriot Prayer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Cyberpower678 on 14:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Patriot Prayer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Can someone step in between the user Darkness Shines and C. W. Gilmore? I've been monitoring the page to make sure the restrictions are being upheld, but now I'm getting drawn into the content dispute and I simply don't have time for that, nor the drive to. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As an uninvolved administrator I have tried to impose a page restriction and asked both users to stay for a bit. But it apparently didn't help much. How do you think we can help? I am looking for users more experienced in resolving content disputes as I am a more technical editor, not a content editor. Summary of dispute by Darkness Shines Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. All my edits are inline with the consensus reached on the talk page. I'm really not seeing the issue with them at all, I've been here a fair while and never encountered such ridiculous objections to my work. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC) I have no problem with a moderated chat. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by C. W. Gilmore Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I've run into an editor that is not giving proper weight to local creditable reporting sources on this article, and attempts to intimidate and bully their way editing based on POV. "I don't need evidence I needed consensus, which I now have Darkness Shines (talk)\". They argue policy over verifiable sourced evidence and reasoned building of consensus: "I'm putting this back, your reasons for removing it have no place in policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)" "Working together to build consensus and compromise is the core of policy.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)" "No it ain't, WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and BLP are. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)" And: "You are not going to get your version of the lede. It is that simple. You've been told this for weeks now and all you do is edit war about it. You should step back.--Jorm (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)" The intimidation includes constant reporting factual edits to Administrator for violations of this or that, and it is not just me but Darkness Shines has done this to others that disagree, going back through September. If that does not all them to succeed in shutting up opposition, then they attempt mid-night raids[2] on the article to make their changes without consensus (see Patriot Prayer Talk page "Lede"[3]) When that fails the editor attempts to push their agenda by death of a thousand cuts with a word change here or there until they achieve their goal without first taking these changes to the Talk page for review and consensus. I was hoping someone could review these edits to the page for neutrality and solid sourcing before they are added by either of us. This edit warring has to end.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Patriot Prayer discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been more than adequate discussion on the talk page. Nihlus 15:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Darkness Shines and C. W. Gilmore: Do both of you wish to participate in moderated discussion about the topic at hand? Nihlus 15:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: @Darkness Shines and C. W. Gilmore: Refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment only on the contributions not the contributor. Please summarize the content issues that is causing this disagreement and not the behavior of the other party. Thanks. Nihlus 02:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC) What you ask seems problematic as the issues over the past three months have been as much about the editing cavalier style taken by Darkness and quick retaliation, if not more, than the end result on this page which we have so far been able to keep in check with the efforts of many supporters of local and creditable reporting.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - A thread has been opened at WP:ANI by an editor who is not one of the participants in this thread. This thread should be either delayed to await resolution of the conduct issue or closed. This noticeboard does not conduct discussion on a matter that is also being discussed in another forum, including a conduct forum such as WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chicago P.D. (TV series)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TheDoctorWho on 03:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Chicago P.D. (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TheDoctorWho (talk · contribs) IJBall (talk · contribs) AussieLegend (talk · contribs) BattleshipMan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a disagreement about whether Tracy Spiridakos had a recurring or guest role during Season 4 of Chicago P.D. (TV series). Reliable sources differentiate in the role because some call her guest, some recurring, and others do not specify. IJBall and BattleshipMan are wishing to take the conservative route and call her guest because they believe she did not appear in enough episodes to be considered recurring. I believe that she is recurring and that because sources cannot adequately distinguish it should be left up to consensus. Both sides of the dispute are based off of guidelines at WP:TVCAST. Please note the dispute has taken place across Chicago P.D. (TV series), Tracy Spiridakos and the decision is meant to include both those as well as List of Chicago P.D. characters. However the dispute discussion has only taken place on Talk:Chicago P.D. (TV series) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple discussions through sections on my talk page, edit summary's on Tracy Spiridakos which eventually led to an edit war, on Tracy Spiridakos before taking it to the Chicago P.D. (TV series) talk page. How do you think we can help? By assisting the involved editors in determining if she was a recurring or guest actor Summary of dispute by IJBall Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AussieLegend Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. WP:TVCAST says "'main' cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count)" and this is a principle that we carry on to other cast members. However, some editors are applying fixed episode counts when determining whether a character is recurring or "merely" a guest. This is the crux of this matter. The actress appeared in 3 episodes of season 4, in the same role and same story arc, so she was recurring in that season, but some editors do not believe this is enough screen time and an insufficient episode count and wish to credit her only as a guest. That is contrary to the principles established by WP:TVCAST. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BattleshipMan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I think that Tracy Spiridakos, who appeared in three episodes in season 4 of Chicago P.D., should be qualified as guest star before she got promoted to series regular in season 5 rather than recurring, which in my opinion should be around five episodes in one season in order to qualify as recurring. We already have so many actors who appeared in three episodes in one season in various shows and I think actors who had appeared in five episodes in one season should qualify them as recurring. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Chicago P.D. (TV_series) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Do the other editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Editor note One said they weren't participating and the other hasn't responded yet I've been tied up with other issues but I will be participating. I'll try to add an opening statement later today. It's 5AM here and I'm going to bed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Updated Note @Robert McClenon: So two of the other three are choosing to participate however User:IJBall has stated they are not interested in participating. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC) I don't know if I will participate further. I'm just passing over the reasons of the dispute on how the number of episode appearances that qualifies recurring and guest stars should be. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Question @Robert McClenon: What happens now that we have opening statements from the assumed to be participating parties? (Are we just waiting on a volunteer to take over / open the case?) TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator The participating editors are asked to read and heed my mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; that has already been inconclusive. Now, will each of the participating editors please state in one paragraph what the issue is and whether there is a Wikipedia guideline on the matter? Does it have to do with whether to list characters as regular or as guests? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors In my opinion the issue seems to be whether or not Tracy Spiridakos was recurring or main during the fourth season of Chicago P.D. (TV series). The closest guideline to this would be at WP:TVCAST where it states: "A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.". Reliable sources have not been able to distinguish as some call her recurring ([4] and [5]), some call her guest ([6] and [7]), however some don't specify at all ([8] and [9]). And yes it has to do with whether to list her as recurring or guest at Chicago P.D. (TV series), List of Chicago P.D. characters, and Tracy Spiridakos. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC) At this point I think it's worth restating what I said in my opening statement above, but for brevity I won't post the whole thing again. I also agree with TheDoctorWho's position. Spiridakos appeared in 3 episodes of the season, which is enough to make her recurring in my opinion and that is supported by the principles of WP:TVCAST. Assigning fixed episode counts to determine recurring status is not supported by WP:TVCAST. "Recurring" and "guest" status are different things, "Recurring" describes the role while "guest" is how the role is credited on-screen. A recurring character can still be credited as a guest and a main character is recurring. It's not one or the other. Spiridakos appeared in multiple episodes in the same role and same story arc - that makes her recurring. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator It appears that two editors think that Spiridakos should be credited as a recurring/main actor in Season 4. It appears that their position is not inconsistent with the applicable guideline, which states that the number of episodes is not a hard-and-fast rule as to how to list a character. Either we can conclude that there is consensus to list her as a recurring actor, or we can use a Request for Comments. Unless there is a good argument that is consistent with policies and guidelines against listing her as a recurring actor, we will conclude that there is consensus for listing her as recurrent. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors I'm good with saying there is consensus to list her as recurring. The two other editors that disagreed have not provided any applicable guidelines that say otherwise. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC) I was waiting for comments by the other named editors but they have provided no arguments so there is little more to say. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goguryeo%E2%80%93Sui War

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Dldusgml1234 on 19:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Goguryeo–Sui War  Users involved Dldusgml1234 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I can not speak English very well. Wikipedia Starter. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Goguryeo%E2%80%93Sui_War user Wandrative He lies. he record Modern estimates vary from 3,000,000 《삼국사기》 삼국사기 Samguk Sagi https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Samguk_Sagi its compilation was ordered by Goryeo's King Injong (r. 1122-1146) and undertaken by the government official and historian Kim Busik it is not modern estimate 삼국사기 samkuksagi It was made in 1146 also in book , not estimate to 3.000.000 estimate to 1.133.000 and He removes my additional record. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third party has to judge How do you think we can help? I can not speak English very well. Wikipedia Starter. i don.t know help me please Goguryeo%E2%80%93Sui War discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Robert A._Mandell#Use_of_undeclared_paid_editors_by_WWB_Too

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 101.63.168.177 on 06:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Robert A. Mandell#Use of undeclared paid editors by WWB Too (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Billmckern (talk · contribs) WWB_Too (talk · contribs) GabeIglesia (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A declared paid editor WWB_Too is inserting his drafts into article content space for this BLP for his client without adequate disclosure or discussion. WWB_Too is canvassing specific editors to insert his ghost written content for him, and his chosen editors are refusing to discuss the edits or to collaborate with me to achieve consensus on what can be inserted. Wikipedia norms for respect and civility are not being followed. There are also legal issues under WMF ToU related to special paid editing disclosures for users in EU which are not being complied with. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page of the main editor, and also on meta https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation How do you think we can help? Encourage the other authors, espcially Billmckern, to collaborate. Summary of dispute by Billmckern Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Someone has falsely, repeatedly accused me of being a paid editor and having a conflict of interest. THEN he asked me to collaborate with him. Not gonna happen. I don't have a conflict. I am not a paid editor. And I'm not going to let someone falsely question my integrity, only to turn round and ask me for help. This individual (or individuals) need to stop lying about me. Billmckern (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by WWB_Too Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Prior to this DRR, I had brought the same dispute to AN/I, albeit with very different framing, and where a resolution seems to be in sight. The most important thing to understand is this: the IP editor is making false allegations that, in my capacity as a disclosed paid contributor, I have made undisclosed payments to the two other editors listed here. The IP has no evidence because it is untrue. Subsequent to this initial claim, the IP editor has been very argumentative with myself and others, not to mention edit warring on the Robert A. Mandell and Brian Krzanich articles (both men have been clients of my firm, and my disclosures have been clear). The charge is false, and this is harassment. The only thing I wish to add at this time is that I do not engage in canvassing. When I seek help on articles, as the guideline recommends: my posts are limited, messaging neutral, audience nonpartisan, and all activities are carried out on open talk pages, as I explained to the IP in this comment. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GabeIglesia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Robert A._Mandell#Use_of_undeclared_paid_editors_by_WWB_Too discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Longest-reigning emperors_in_China

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Jackliu239 on 15:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Longest-reigning emperors in China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jackliu239; O1lI0 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This page, Longest reigning emperors in China, give a list of longest ruling emperors in Chinese history, this is very useful and informative article. But yet this person O1lI0 keep vandalizing the article, he keep deleting 90%+ of the content and only leaving one paragraph base on the excuse that there the longest Longest reigning "emperor" in China is this one person ONLY However its clearly stated that the name of this page is Longest reigning "emperors" in China "emperors" = more than 1 person. Also if you search in wikipedia But yet no matter how many time I edit it back, he keep deleting it. He also proposed to remove the whole page base on the excuse that "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_China" already exist. But this is a whole new different article than this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to message him, write in talk page but he does not listen, but keep deleting the article and I will keep putting them back. You be the judge How do you think we can help? Ban him from vandalizing the article Summary of dispute by Jackliu239; O1lI0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Longest-reigning emperors_in_China 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.

Al-Khalid tank

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 62.231.238.166 on 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Al-Khalid tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thomas.W (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have been trying to start a discussion in the talk page. I have been pushing to have the page un merged or split providing arguments, sources and images. Than an editor came and established a biased and un-sourced narrative and has removed information (pakistan from the country origin box). This was all done without establishing a consensus in the talk page. I have tried to engage the editor in the talk page and reverse the page to what it was before, but my edits keep getting reversed. I did not come along and split the article without establishing a consensus in the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried going to his page but he refused to engage in the talk page and not justify his edits. How do you think we can help? We need a 3rd party to come in and resolve this dispute and disruptive editing. So we can get people engaging on the talk page. Summary of dispute by Thomas.W Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not going to take part in this, for multiple reasons, the main one being that there's a long discussion on the talk page of the article between the IP-hopper and multiple other people, with a clear consensus against the OR and POV changes the IP-hopper in Oman wants to make, so naming me only as "opponent", as if it was a dispute between two people only, is outright silly. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC) Al-Khalid tank 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.

Gillian Keegan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by MichaelKeegan on 11:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Gillian Keegan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MichaelKeegan (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Sitush keeps posting an unofficial portrait of Gillian Keegan in preference to the Official House of Commons portrait. The image that Sitush keeps reposting is no longer the official portrait and this user keeps reposting the wrong photo despite numerous requests not to from Gillian Keegan's office and me explaining that the official photo has now been changed. This results in the press using an unauthorised photo which is not the Official House of Commons portrait by the UK Parliament. In addition user Sitush also rejects attempts to correct misleading information about the persons business experience. We have no idea why this user thinks they have the right to make these changes and preserve inaccurate information. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Allow Gillian's Official portrait image to be displayed. How do you think we can help? Request that the users refrain from changing the official image. Gillian Keegan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Lies, conflict of interest, sock/meatpuppetry and edit warring against consensus. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:HussainSabaa

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by HussainSabaa on 11:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:HussainSabaa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HussainSabaa (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We use to provide some information about Bahrain Financial Harbour into it's page, and some editor just refuse to accept those edits. they used to undo our edits, then someone decide that we are into edit war and lock the page edit till April of next year. this wasn't reasonable as some information into that page are not correct, plus what we've provided was 100% correct and we have all the resources for every single information. Have you tried to resolve this previously? yes, I tried to discuss this issue with the editors, but they don't want to listen. How do you think we can help? please, unlock the page and allow me to update the information of that page. User talk:HussainSabaa discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk: Soviet-Afghan War

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by GPRamirez5 on 02:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Soviet-Afghan War (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved GPRamirez5 (talk · contribs) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to add information from an independent up-to-date academic secondary source. When I did so it was summarily removed by user TheTimeAreAChanging. This user gave an explanation of his rationale, but did not propose a compromise edit or qualification of any sort, in fact he dismissed this out of hand. He justifies this by second-guessing the independent up-to-date scholarship, by holding up a twenty year old source as the last word, and by counter-posing a primary source written by a party with a vested interest. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page How do you think we can help? Review and advise on the situation. Clarify which type of sources are most reliable, especially the correct way to use primary sources. Monitor the dialogue for logical fallacies, biased double-standards and Original Research infiltration. Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging Robert McClenon recently informed me of this DRN discussion; I was not notified by GPRamirez5. As advised, I will keep my opening statement (relatively) brief, but I have already made my case in much greater detail on the relevant talk page, where GPRamirez5 has not responded to my argument in any substantive way. A succinct summary of this dispute is that GPRamirez5 considers a 2013 article by Kyle Tadman in the journal Western Illinois Historical Review an unimpeachable reference for the extraordinary claim, clearly attributed by Tadman to Robert Gates, that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) directly armed the Afghan mujahideen fighting Afghanistan's communist government as early as September 1979—three months prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979—and considers it original research to read Tadman's article, check his citation (footnote 29 on page 43), and compare Tadman's summary with what his source (Gates's From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War, Simon & Schuster, 1996) actually says. (Which, of course, it would be if I was proposing to add material refuting Tadman to Soviet–Afghan War, rather than evaluating source reliability in a talk page discussion.) Meanwhile, GPRamirez5 has advanced numerous and varied "original research" arguments against the majority of reliable sources that do not support this assertion, pointing out that Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal (Oxford University Press, 1995) is (like Gates) "a twenty year old source" and dismissing the author of What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979–1989 (Brookings Institution Press, 2014) as (like Gates) "a primary source" because he worked for the CIA before retiring more than ten years ago to begin his new career (per his bio) as "a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies"—although GPRamirez5 has yet to explain what new information refutes Steve Coll's definitive Ghost Wars (Penguin Group, 2004). In reality, the CIA supplied "non-lethal" aid to the mujahideen prior to the Soviet invasion through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), ultimately including efforts "to help finance, orchestrate, and facilitate weapons purchases and related assistance" through third-parties, and it is hardly surprising that GPRamirez5 was able to find a single source conflating that earlier assistance with the far larger direct transfer of arms from the CIA to the ISI (and from the ISI to the mujahideen) beginning in January 1980, after searching for nearly a year. Furthermore, as I outlined on the talk page, GPRamirez5's proposed edit misrepresents Tadman with regard to the crucial question of when President Carter authorized lethal provisions for the mujahideen in an amended presidential finding; Tadman (pp. 60–61, 63), citing Coll, says that Carter revised the finding in December 1979, but GPRamirez5 insists that it happened in September, despite presenting absolutely no evidence that that is the case.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Talk: Soviet-Afghan War discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Kang_Daniel_(2nd_nomination)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Moon Gin on 15:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Daniel (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Moon Gin (talk · contribs) Snowflake91 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Disagreement over notability of Kang Daniel the subject in the article. The challenger of the article (Snowflake91) initially stated that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND but even after the creator of the article (Moon Gin) has presented the facts that indicate otherwise (and even acknowledged by the challenger himself), the challenger refused to withdraw the deletion nomination and even resorted to accusation and stalking behavior which detracts from the purpose of improving and/or validating the article in dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The creator of the article (Moon Gin) has tried to bring this issue to the challenger (Snowflake91) on the page itself How do you think we can help? By mediating and advising how to come out with a peaceful agreement regarding the dispute and also how to handle the deletion case fairly Summary of dispute by Snowflake91 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Kang_Daniel_(2nd_nomination) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of Turkish football champions

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 1886kusagi on 20:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of Turkish football champions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 1886kusagi (talk · contribs) Akocsg (talk · contribs) Dispute overview According to the turkish football federation the former tournaments are not recognized as off. championships and therefore should not listed at the page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Showed off. sources and examples of the other countries lists. How do you think we can help? Find the true and correct form for the list Summary of dispute by 1886kusagi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As i mentioned above, IMO only the official recognized (by the Turkish football federation) championships shouöd be listed. As it is the way at the other countries list of football champions. The list of champions according to the Turkish Football Federation: http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=379 Summary of dispute by Akocsg Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:List of Turkish football champions discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion on talk page. The request was malformed so I fixed it. The filling party did not notify the other editor, so I posted a notification on their talk page.--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Are the editors interested in moderated discussion? (One editor has not commented at all. Since participation here is voluntary, this thread will be closed if they do not respond within 48 hours.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template talk:Austrian People's Party/meta/color

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Melberg on 14:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Austrian People's Party/meta/color (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Melberg (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The discussion is about the color of the Austrian People's Party. The NYT article says that "[..] refashioning the party as a movement, swapping out its traditional black color for a more modern turquoise and generating support through a social media campaign focused [..]". see here; also the web-page of the övp also uses turquoise. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Change the black color to turquoise How do you think we can help? Change the black color to turquoise Template talk:Austrian People's Party/meta/color discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. refashioning the party as a movement, swapping out its traditional black color for a more modern turquoise and generating support through a social media campaign focused on the idea of breaking with the consensus-focused politics that has dominated Austrian lawmaking for decades. The turquoise is the color of the electoral movement not of the party. You have edited a template without consensus. NYT talks about the movement, not the OVP. A party is not a movement. Now please provide another source. It talk about the List Kurz. Per source, the source doesn't say that the color of the party have been changed. WP:RfC is better. --Panam2014 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Comment I would suggest this request is turned down as highly premature. There is a more detailed discussion on this at Talk:Austrian legislative election, 2017. Melberg should join in there instead. Number 57 19:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khitan (circumcision)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Muffizainu on 10:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Khitan (circumcision) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muffizainu (talk · contribs) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page discusses the Arabic definition of the term "Khitan", which includes male and female circumcision. I had added information to the article provided reputed dictionary definitions and scholarly articles and classical sources. A mass revert was made claiming that the sources were un-reliable, but providing no justification whatsoever. These edits were made over and until Sep 2017, and the mass revert was done on 10 Oct 2017. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have opened a dialog on the talk page requested the user SlimVirgin to provide justification for the revert. However, no response has been received. How do you think we can help? The matter is controversial, and highly misunderstood by both spectrums. I believe Wikiedia should be able to provide neutral information on the practice of female circumcision and provide information relating to both sides of the story. There are pages dedicated to FGM as well, so that information does not need to be repeated here. This page should only be limited to "Khitan" ie circumcision, and define the term circumcision for both male and females which is referredas Type 1a by the WHO & UN. Definition - Khitan (Arabic: ختان‎‎) or Khatna (Arabic: ختنة‎‎) is the term for male and female circumcision Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad ibn Mukarram (1311). Lisan Al-Arab. Qumm, Iran. p. 1102. ISBN 9953131953. & Lane, Edward William (1863). Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Willams & Norgate. p. 703. Views on female circumcision are very disparate and significantly fewer Muslim schools regard it as a religious requirement. Khitan, in some of parts of the world, including Indonesia and Malaysia, may also refer to the female genital mutilation (properly khafḍ). Complete defintiion of the term FC in an Islamic context, since the page defines the Islamic word "Khitan" Khafḍ or k̲h̲ifāḍ, is the Arabic word for circumcision usually used for women rather than men. It is also referred to as khitān for both sexes. Today the word is used to mean any of the forms of female genital mutilation from Type 1a to Type 4. In many communities of the world, khafd is a rite of passage and refers to excision of the female genitalia. There are 4 types of FGM that range from the least severe incision on or partial removal of the prepuce skin over the clitoris to very severe excision and infibulation procedures. Over 125 million women, primarily in Africa, Middle East and Parts of Southeast Asia and South Asia are currently known to have undergone FGM, with Egypt recording the highest number of khafd women in the world. FC amoung the Muslims and Shias Like male circumcision, female circumcision is considered as a religious requirement of the Dawoodi Bohras. Both male and female circumcision (Arabic khatna and khafd respectively) find mention in books of jurisprudence written in the 10th century, including in Daim al-Islam, the principal book of Ismaili Fatimid jurisprudence written by Al-Qadi al-Nu'man (died 974 CE/ 363 AH). The book traces the custom for both genders to the sayings of Prophet Muhammad and his successor (according to the Shia) Ali ibn Abi Talib. Prosecution and Reduction - details on individual communities position of FC, and by also providing the opposing views. References Summary of dispute by SlimVirgin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Khitan (circumcision) 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.

Female genital_mutilation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Muffizainu on 10:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muffizainu (talk · contribs) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article needs more information on the subject of female circumcision, especially the Islamic basis of the practice. It is also imperative to ddifferentitate Islamic FC from the harm practices of FGM. I have tried to make improvements to the article, providing citations, but reverts have been made without justification. The first issue would be the ruling of the Azhar University. The original text said that the Azhar University disagreed with the practice. I provided information that the University itself has disagreements within itself, and thus, that information is irrelavant on the page. I provided the citations. However, this edit was reverted, and providing both sides of the story was swiftly deleted. If you want to keep the Azhar disagreeing, then you can also put the citations that Azhar agrees with female circumcision as well. This will give both sides of the story. If it all it has been I who've been discussing on the talk page, and User Slim Virgin is deleting without providing any justification. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have inititated dialogue on the talk pages to provide justification of the reverts. But no justification has been provided. How do you think we can help? I propose the Islamic section of the article needs to be edited better to show neutral positions of the Islamists that are for and against female circumcision. This also needs to be highlighted that Islamic FC comes under Type 1a, and should not be confused with other harmful practices of FGM. The Azhar University isn't an internationally recognized one body of Islam (unlike the Vatican for Catholics). Therefore, providing one judgement is misleading. Either that should be removed, or, to provide a nuetral stance, the disagreements between the Azhar Scholars must also be provided to inform the reader that there isn't one un-disputed position. As for Azhar, here's some information to show even the recent disagreements: In 2007, as a response to the statements issued by Mohammed Syyed Tantawi and Ali Jumua wherein the practise of khafd was considered un-Islamic and directed against, a group of jurists and intellectuals re-asserted the 1981 findings of al Shaykh al Azhar Jad al Haq mentioned earlier. https://ar.islamway.net/article/2362/ Dr Mohammed Musayyar in an interview published by Memri in 2007 says that even though all the four Madhahib have different interpretations in the matter varying from obligatory to sunnah to a noble deed. (2007, May 23). Islamic Scholars on Female Circumcision - YouTube. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oI0KmUKq8 In an interview published by Memri in 2007, Dr Mohammed Wahdan- a lecturer in Al Azhar University claimed that the origin of female circumcision is since the time of prophet Ibrahim. Islamic Religious Experts on Female Circumcision - YouTube. N.p., 23 May 2007. Web. 22 July 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUvrHsPaTSo>. Among the scholars and institutions that support female circumcision according to an article published in 2005 is: Shaykh ‘Atiyah Saqr – the former head of the Fatwa Committee in Al-Azhar, and Dar al-Ifta Al-Misriyah. http:// www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/60314/female%20circumcision%20in%20islam (Munajjid, 2014) Female Circumcision in the Quran In my explanation I explained 1) The idea that since FC is not mentioned in the Quran and therefore un-Islamic isn't correct, because most Islamic practices are not mentioned in the Quran, including Male circumcision. Islamic practices and the details on how it should be done are found in the traditions of the Prophet Mohammed. So, that sentence in itself is wrong and misleading. You may refer to (Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. Journal of Medical Ethics 2016), where they say: "It is no more possible to define Islam within the four corners of the Quran than to define Christianity (which includes traditions ranging from Presbyterian to Pentecostal to Greek Orthodoxy) solely from a reading of the Bible. Rather, the content of religious belief and practice are guided by interpretive texts and traditions. Thus, many Muslim scholars classify Female Genital Alteration (FGA) as ‘Sunnah’ or practice established by the Prophet Muhammad. Though not prescribed explicitly in the Quran, the practice thus is religiously virtuous. In fact, the colloquial term for FGA procedures in Arabic refers to a ritual state of purity.” For those who aren't aware, even simple "Islamic" practices like praying 5 times a day, or how to pray or fast, are not mentioned in the Quran - the details are found in the traditions and narrations of the Prophet Mohammed. 2) I also cited information that FC was deemed obligatory by certain sects in Islam namely the Shaafi'i and Hanbali, you can view the information here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation That is why I wrote "In Islam, Type 1a female circumcision is praised in several hadith (sayings attributed to Muhammad) as noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory) - based on the various Sunni Islam & Shia Islam traditions" Female Circumcision is Islam is not for chastity - it is to increase sexual pleasure: I didn't make this edit, but I did suggest it, that "the following sentence "but the practice became associated with Islam because of that religion's focus on female chastity and seclusion", because only about 3 of the 100s of sources talk about "chastity", all the other versions mention it is done to increase sexual pleasure between male and female couples. I request a vote from editors to confirm my findings as well. Summary of dispute by SlimVirgin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Female genital_mutilation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ali Khamenei

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Dr.K. on 22:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ali Khamenei (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dr.K. (talk · contribs) Icewhiz (talk · contribs) Mhhossein (talk · contribs) Saff V. (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A sustained effort has been undertaken by a couple of users to add a section at the Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article called "Free Thinking Seats". This section has been reverted repeatedly on the basis of incomprehensible, confusing, unclear statements, copyvios (see revdeled edits at the article history), excessive quotations, puffery, primary sources, and bad grammar. I also have explained in detail my arguments on the talkpage but the opposing users have not replied in a substantive way to the points raised by myself and Icewhiz and keep edit-warring this ungrammatical, confusing, and promotional piece into the article. Regardless, these users keep adding this piece into the article, modified in some way or other, but without any serious attempt to address, in any detail, the detailed points on the talkpage which oppose addition of this material. In fact, the first time, on 7 October, Mhhossein dismissed my detailed reply as "walls of text". Although my answer was succinct and concise, I AGF'ed about Mhhossein's claim that he had difficulty reading it, and to help him read it, I rearranged the text in discrete and numbered sections but still he gave no reply. When Mhhossein finally replied on the 17th of October, s/he summarily dismissed all the objections and told myself and Icewhiz to tag the section and find new sources. This flippant attitude is the reason I am here at DRN. I also suspect that there may be a language barrier that makes it difficult to communicate with the two editors who keep adding this very flawed piece back into the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy discussions at the article talkpage. How do you think we can help? I need the opinions of more editors on this dispute and I would like their opinions on the suitability of the proposed material which is based on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, no secondary sources, no critique by other independent sources, with no background, no explanation, and using bad grammar and bad English. Response to Mhhossein Mhhosein states below: Was it really hard to get the point when it was "some sort of social movement"? My response is: This is obviously something, still unexplained, and quite esoteric. Despite multiple questions to that effect, "Software social movement", this mysterious "movement" which is both social, and "software, is still ill-defined. How can a serious encyclopædia present such promotional-sounding, vacuous, half-baked concepts to its readers? Mhhosein states below: He asked what the "seminary" and was and to avoid WP:OR, I linked the word to it's Wiki article. This is another misrepresentation. I did no such thing. The disputed text reads as follows: Formation of Free Thinking Seats was first suggested by Ali Khamenei through a letter to the seminary's graduates in 2003. As you see, the text does not speak about "any" seminary, it speaks about "the seminary", a "single" seminary, without giving any background or explanation about that specific seminary. This is confusing to the readers. Mhhosein states below: I did the same for "Velayat [Faqih]" and "revolutionary". Why should I add unnecessary details to an unrelated article by comitting WP:OR, when the reader can simply click on the word to see the article? This is another misrepresentation. For my exact comments, see example 5 on the talkpage, which I reproduce here for your convenience: Example 5 “I totally agree with this and a Muslim revolutionary student devoted to Velayat [Faqih] should overpower opposite arguments in cold blood and with the power of logic and strength of argument, which this capacity exists today.” What does that mean? It is unclear, disconnected, and confusing. Who is a Muslim revolutionary student devoted to Velayat [Faqih] and what does that have to do with the "Free Thinking seats"? Who is "Velayat [Faqih]"? No explanations are given. Propaganda-sounding quotes are added into the article from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES with no background, no explanation, and in bad English. ...should overpower opposite arguments in cold blood and with the power of logic and strength of argument, which this capacity exists today. What does "cold blood" have to do with anything? How is "cold blood" connected to "Free Thinking seats"? "which this capacity exists today" is [bad grammar, ill-defined, and] logically unconnected to the previous sentence and it sounds like propaganda. And this goes on and on I do not wish to flood this noticeboard with copies of my responses. But I will reproduce here the disputed text in collapsed form, so that you can judge it for yourselves and give us your opinion and advice. I think the disputed text speaks for itself as to its confusion, unexplained esoteric jargon, and promotional content. (For my detailed, and numbered, replies to many other points, please see the Ali Khamenei talkpage. Thank you.) Disputed text in collapsed form Formation of Free Thinking Seats was first suggested by Ali Khamenei through a letter to the [[seminary]]'s graduates in 2003.<ref name="korsiha"/> Later, in a session with the elites in 2009, he insisted on formation of these "criticism, debate and free-thinking forums" as a means to achieve "software [[Social movement| movement]] and scientific development of the country", based on "rationality and utilization of collective wisdom."<ref name="korsiha">{{cite web|last1=Staff|first1=Writer|title=Freethinking seats|url=http://korsiha.ir/page/about.php|website=korsiha}}</ref> On 12 July 2015, Ayatollah Khamenei said regardin Free thinking seats: "I totally agree with this and a Muslim [[Iranian Revolution|revolutionary]] student devoted to [[Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist|Velayat]] [[Faqih|[Faqih]]] should overpower opposite arguments in cold blood and with the power of logic and strength of argument, which this capacity exists today."<ref name="Staff">{{cite web|last1=Staff|first1=Writer|title=The main reason behind bombing of Yemen is Saudi’s anger about Iran’s influence in the region|url=http://www.leader.ir/en/content/13415/The-Leader%E2%80%99s-four-hour-meeting-with-hundreds-of-students|website=leader}}</ref> Finally, I support Icewhiz's comment about using unfiltered jargon and quotes from the non-free Iranian sources Because without commentary and dispassionate analysis from neutral sources, this event and obscure, largely confusing, esoteric jargon, presented unfiltered in the article, is just another means to advertise the regime. The number of quotes in the disputed paragraph is ridiculously excessive, for a short paragraph, and points to pure promotion of the slogans of the regime. I find this tactic completely unacceptable for a serious encyclopædia. (Non) response to Saff V. Saff V.'s response does not address any of the valid points I have raised, both on the article talkpage, and on this board. Therefore, I will not engage further with Saff V. I also think his concluding remark is telling: Are you using this board to challenge that is Iran a country with free thinking or not?! I will not reply to such polemical/political statements. I rest my case. Response to Mhhossein's PAs Mhhossein stated: I think these users really need to receive hard warnings, if the reasoning behind their edit warring are only what they claim here. All of the section was removed due to some self-made and bizarre allegations. My response is: If after all these good-faith efforts I and Icewhiz undertook to explain our position about the bizarre section Mhhossein and Saff V. are attempting to add to the article, Mhhossein utters these clueless threats, then he either has a language barrier, competence issues, or lacks WP:AGF. I am not sure which case he qualifies under, but this is one of the main reasons I came to this noticeboard. Thankfully, the community editors of this board will help resolve the problems posed by Mhhossein's antics. Mhhossein got it wrong Mhhossein said: Don't you know that "The seminary's graduates= The graduates of seminary." @Mhhossein: No, we don't. Your sentence is both grammatically incorrect and semantically wrong. You have a language barrier problem. You are in no position to seek sanctions against editors whose arguments you are unable to understand. Response to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: My only personal comments were in response to personal comments by other editors. Do you have specific quotes so that I can explain them to you? As far as the length of my comments, I can make them shorter if you like, but it basically amounts to just reading the collapsed text and giving us your opinion if it is ok to be included in the article. Also you can read my Dispute overview and forget about the rest. If you like, I can collapse my replies to other editors, if it is going to assist you. Dr. K. 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I also wonder why you mentioned only me as making personal comments, when the other disputants have made direct references to myself, including making threats of admin action and calling my comments about their proposed text "self-made" and "bizarre", which are PAs. You can add to that, that there are language difficulties among some of the participants, as you mentioned, and you can see how difficult it is to explain linguistic and grammatical flaws to such editors. Dr. K. 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Icewhiz Non free Iranian media can not be considered RS for the Supreme Leader of Iran - it is actually a criminal offense (a type of blasphemy) to insult him, and this is enforced (including recent cases). The text itself is simply bad English. Beyond these two points relevance/notability is not clear to me (I am on the fence) based on the current sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Just to source this not-RS assertion - Freedom House: Iran Freedom of the Press 2017 a recent case against a journalist - Iranian reporter sentenced to two years in prison and 50 lashes, Guardian, 8 July 2014. I'll note that per Freedom House (as well as de-jure status in Iran, this can lead to a blasphemy charge!) - "Certain topics—including criticism of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—are subject to long-standing redlines, enforced in part through harsh online and offline censorship" - criticism of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in particular is strictly off limits (a redline).Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) @Mhhossein: as a means to achieve "software movement and scientific development of the country" - this is not English. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean (if it were just poor English and I understood the intent - it could be fixed). I don't understand "software movement". If I replace "software movement" with "social movement" - the sentence doesn't make sense - one does not achieve "social movement" (in conjunction with "scientific development of the country"!). One starts a social movement, forms a social movement, promotes, etc. I could sort of understand if this was social mobility (so - promoting social mobility and scientific development) - but this requires me to make a few leaps of assumption - that I'm not sure are correct ("software movement" could perhaps also mean in this context a form of thought or changing the thought patterns). This is why Dr.K. kept on probing you for How does software move? Up, down, left, right? How does software move? - it really doesn't make sense!Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC) As for sourcing - some source independent of the Supreme Leader (government included) is required here - otherwise we have a WP:IS problem.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC) @Mhhossein: - in regards to "the seminary" - the problem is which seminary. Not what seminary means. Is this the Qom Seminary? Some other seminary? Once you use the "the" definite article, it is expected that the specific target be explicit (either from the sentence, or from previous context) - which is not the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mhhossein I don't have much more to add beyond my TP comments. But I came across some bizarre and weird comments by Dr.K. so that they took me the point I was doubting if the questions were serious or... . Their persistent Warrior behavior even worsened the situation of the article. Just some of their amazing allegations: I said "software movement" was a sort of social movement and Dr.K. kept asking "How does software move? Up, down, left, right? How does software move?". Was it really hard to get the point when it was "some sort of social movement"? He asked what the "seminary" and was and to avoid WP:OR, I linked the word to it's Wiki article. I did the same for "Velayat [Faqih]" and "revolutionary". Why should I add unnecessary details to an unrelated article by comitting WP:OR, when the reader can simply click on the word to see the article? Are these really serious so that he let himself remove a whole section by edit war? Was it hard to add {{what}} where ever clarification was needed? Let alone Icewhiz amazing notes on the reliability of a source moderated by Iran's ministry of Science and a source which is the wbsite of "The Office of the Supreme Leader". Imagine that they removed these well-sourced items because they claimed that it was not "clear from the text what these seats" were and that they were "missing a perspective on how free these free seats" were. Was the solution to remove the whole section or add complementary materials to remove the claimed doubts? Editors are not responsible to explain every single words of the articles. I guarantee that there's no "language barrier", but some sort of unknown problems! --Mhhossein talk 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) I think these users really need to receive hard warnings, if the reasoning behind their edit warring are only what they claim here. All of the section was removed due to some self-made and bizarre allegations. More comments will be added at the request of volunteer moderators and/or admins. Don't you know that "The seminary's graduates= The graduates of seminary." Even if your claims are true, which is not if course, how did you allow yourselves to blank a wholes section? --Mhhossein talk 11:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Thanks for the comments. No, there's no language problem. You can see my Good articles and other contributions (see the latest one which appeared on the main page). Normally, we don't remove a whole section for such simple resolvable issues. I doubt if their problems are only what they say here. --Mhhossein talk 05:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Saff V. I added text described Free thinking seat (on of Ali Khamenei’s thought) with supportive sources and in three times the whole of text has been reverted. By Mhhossein's clarifications I tried to prepare a better text but It was removed again. Also I can’t believe that using words like seminary or software movement are the main issue, Wikilink and footnote help to make clear that words. I asked Dr.K. about his reasoning behind his reverting, and he answered in an amazing words! On the other hand, that page belong to Ali khamenei and we can added his thought with supportive source to it. The free thinking seat is the idea presented by him. The sources are reliable and there's nor primary source issue. Are you using this board to challenge that is Iran a country with free thinking or not?! Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Ali Khamenei discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion on the talk page and all users have been notified. Nihlus 22:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The opening statement by User:Dr.K. is long, and is difficult to follow. It also comments both on content and on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Some of the above statements appear to indicate difficulty in explaining in English. If any editor is having difficulty in explaining in English, they are invited to consider editing the Wikipedia in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - I am puzzled by the comment of one editor about a "software movement". Like another editor, I don't know what that is, and I don't think that the problem is with my use of English, but that "software movement" doesn't have an understandable meaning in English. It is very hard to conduct moderated discussion if some of the editors are unable to explain in English what they are trying to say about how to edit an article that is written in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Please do not suggest that editors should receive "hard warnings". This noticeboard is not the place for hard warnings. Any requests for sanctions should be taken to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Celebrity Mastermind

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by BangJan1999 on 23:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Celebrity Mastermind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BangJan1999 (talk · contribs) Edwardx (talk · contribs) Dougal18 (talk · contribs) Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute involving whether the Episodes section of the article should stay or not. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I opened a discussion on the talk page and so far Edwardx is the only one for keeping the section. That isn't quite what I said. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) How do you think we can help? A neutral, unbiased opinion on whether the section should stay or go. Summary of dispute by Edwardx Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. On 25 September, User:Dougal18 first removed the section, with the edit summary "Removed episode guide as it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant". I restored it, "Unjustified removal of content". This continued despite my repeated mentions of WP:BRD, WP:3RR and "Use the talkpage please!" Dougal18 responded with "We don't need talk page discussion for something that has no place on Wikipedia". I raised it on the Edit warring noticeboard, and on 26 September, Dougal18 recieved a "last warning" for edit warring, and the page was protected. Dougal18 blanked their talkpage 87 minutes later. On 29 September, User:BangJan1999 first became involved, starting a talkpage discussion, "Episodes section" on Talk:Celebrity_Mastermind. It is not a long discussion, and I will not attempt to summarise it, except to say that neither BangJan1999 or Dougal18 made a substantial policy-based argument. We should keep this section, because what notable people do is notable. Of course a game show is somewhat ephemeral, but Mastermind is a long-running (since 1972) serious quiz show, and the Celebrity version has been running since 2002. The BBC episodes guide, rather than the "official" link, would be a better External link if any reader wished to verify the contestants, specialist subjects or finishing order. As I stated on the talkpage, "the content of the list is all verifiable, and could not reasonably be considered to be 'contentious material'. - this list does comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Edwardx (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dougal18 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Other game shows like Pointless and The Chase had their episode guides removed/AfD'd years ago under WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:EPISODES. This should be no different. It's also unsourced. There is no info on subjects or finishing positions for some episodes. Dougal18 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Philafrenzy The objection to the list of winners is that celebrities are being treated better or given more prominence than the non-celebrity winners of the regular series, however, the Mastermind article does also list winners of the competition although those are series winners rather than episode winners I think. Since the celebrity version of the show is about the sometimes surprising things celebrities know and are interested in, I think the list of contestants and their subjects is the proper content of the article. It is a bit long and lacks references but that could easily be fixed. I also note that everyone mentioned has an article (I haven't checked if any of them are redirects). Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Celebrity Mastermind discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator Volunteer note - I will be moderating this discussion in attempt to help the parties reach a resolution. Please remember to be civil and comment only on content, not contributors. My responses will be guided towards a resolution acceptable to all parties and in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The dispute appears to be around whether or not the list of episodes is against WP:LISTCRUFT (which is not a Wikipedia policy) and WP:EPISODES (a content guideline). In addition, there are concerns about the celebrities receiving preferential status in the list compared to the non-celebrity winners. There is also a lack of references which could be resolved using a link that complies with WP:VERIFY. Are any of the parties against creating a separate "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page which links from the main article per WP:EPISODES and allows a summary paragraph/section to recap perhaps the more prominent points from the seasons? -- Dane talk 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by editors Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There wouldn't be much left in the article and I think the subject choices of the losers are probably as interesting as the winners as the losers appear all to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Yes. There are no "points" let alone "pertinent points" to be made in a "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page. That would mean reducing the Celebrity Mastermind page to a couple of paragraphs. Dougal18 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Ditto Dougal18. BangJan1999 22:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Anyone with more than a mere passing interest in the show (either the celebrity or normal version) will have pondered on what specialist subject they might chose. The choices of notable people are of interest and have encyclopaedic value, and they can afford some insight into their interior lives. What non-notable people do is not notable, as set out in WP:BLP1E. Some overall summary of the specialist subjects chosen in the "normal" series might have encyclopaedic value, but not this sort of list. The link to the BBC episodes guide I provide above would meet the demands of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without the epsiodes list, the Celebrity Mastermind article would be rather thin. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Volunteer note - The editors agree that removing the episode list would result in the article being extremely "thin" without much content. There is no consensus for moving the episodes to a separate list article. Edwardx has provided policy rationale regarding why the list should remain (Verifiability) as well as why there is a difference in this article instead of the regular Mastermind article. Do any of the other parties have policy based rationale for why the list should be removed? Are there any compromises to how the list is presented that may be acceptable to all parties? -- Dane talk 01:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by editors Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This was AFD'd back in June https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Crystal_Maze_episodes under WP:NOTSTATS. Maybe I used a wrong policy to nominate it for deletion. There is no episode guide to the celeb episodes either - the celebs aren't even mentioned in the Crystal Maze article. Mentioning the results here would be inconsistent. I don't know what notability a puppet's (Hacker T Dog) specialist subject has or what insight it has into his personal life. Chris Stark picking a co worker "The Great Man Scott Mills", Tony Singh doing "History of tartan" and a couple of celebs picking characters from Friends as subjects shows ridiculousness. Why should Wikipedia care about this if they don't? The list either goes or stays in it's entirety. I see no logical reason for compromise here. Dougal18 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC) I don't think there is any objective way of trimming the list other than by restricting it just to winners, but as I have said, the subjects chosen by notable losers seem as significant (or not) as those chosen by losers. I don't think it need concern us that most of them have chosen pop culture topics, that's their world and the subjects all seem to have articles. If the contestants and the subjects are all notable doesn't this make the content of the article more valid? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC) The most interesting and notable aspect is the specialist subjects chosen by the contestants. Even if some of them chose subjects that others may view as trivial, then that in itself may afford some insight into that particular celebrity (as for the "History of tartan", please read tartan, and show a little respect to my Scottish ancestors!). The results are perhaps less notable, as each show is self-contained, and unlike the normal series, winners do not go on to further rounds, and ultimately a final. As I've said before, what notable people do is often notable, and is so in this case. All the content is verifiable from the BBC episodes page. Edwardx (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Unless I've missed something, the BBC website doesn't actually give the specialist subjects chosen for the first nine series', only the celebrities participating. The first four series' have no information at all, and only the most recent series gives any results at all. Unless there are reliable secondary sources found that can back up the information, I don't think most of the data in the table is verifiable. BangJan1999 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC) References Third statement by moderator Volunteer note - The verifiability of the data in the table is challenged. Specifically above, an episode is shown that does not have the subjects listed. This episode lists the subjects but not necessarily which celebrity answered which subject. Do we have another reliable source that would list this information and allow the information to be sourced verifiably? The editors seem to agree there is no way to trim the list while maintaining its value in the article. If we aren't able to address the verifiability/sourcing, policy would seem to guide us to remove the content. That being said, would the editors involved agree to keep the content if the sourcing can be achieved and remove the content if not? -- Dane talk 19:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - I will ping other parties later today for additional comments if none received when I check back. Thanks to the editors below for their responses so far! -- Dane talk 04:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Attempting to get further participation. -- Dane talk 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Third statement by editors Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I just realised that UKGameshows.com has a list of everyone who has won an edition of Celebrity Mastermind in order, but still doesn't include other information required for the most part. I still think the quality of the content needs to be taken into account even if all the data can be backed up by reliable sources under WP:VNOTSUFF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BangJan1999 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC) The dispute wasn't over if the info had a RS or not but if the info had a place in the article. I can't dispute wiki policy so if it is sourced, verified and relevant then of course it should stay. Dougal18 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bobby Cox#Spousal_Abuse_Section_Necessary.3F.3F

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Benmoreassynt on 19:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Bobby Cox#Spousal Abuse Section Necessary.3F.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Benmoreassynt (talk · contribs) BilCat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been a long-running dispute about how to mention the 1995 arrest, brief imprisonment and charging with simple battery of Bobby Cox. Edits made by a previous editor lacked neutrality and were removed, but I tried to add a section which dealt with the issue in an entirely neutral tone. The edit was quickly reverted by user BilCat who had been involved in the previous dispute. I believe the incident in Bobby Cox's career is noteworthy, reliably sourced and un-controversial (in its established facts) and is currently dealt with in such a brief way as itself to lack neutrality and imply the incident was not important or it was established the allegations by Cox's wife were untrue. This is not the case. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted a lengthy comment to the talk page explaining why I think there needs to be further comment, but I haven't reinstated my edit. How do you think we can help? By reviewing the incident and the edit I made for being of note and neutrality of tone, and comparing it with comment of similar incidents in the careers of other sports people, and making a recommendation as to how the incident should be addressed. I would compare https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Aroldis_Chapman#Personal_life https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Reyes_(infielder)#Personal_life https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ray_Rice#Domestic_violence_criminal_charges Summary of dispute by BilCat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Bobby Cox#Spousal_Abuse_Section_Necessary.3F.3F discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by BrightR on 09:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BrightR (talk · contribs) Farcaller (talk · contribs) CliffracerX (talk · contribs) Tulpabug (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The talk page links to the beginning of the dispute; in general, three editors keep using citations inappropriately and incorporate poor citations (reddit discussions, internet forums, predatory journals, original synthesis) and misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them, as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research). The dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections. Have you tried to resolve this previously? When this dispute was between two editors (myself and Seteleechete) I solicited a third opinion. When the third opinion agreed that the article cannot put so much emphasis on personal opinions of tulpa practitioners, three other editors joined in and started adding dubious sources and using weasel words to misattribute personal feelings by tulpa practitioners as if they were scientific studies. How do you think we can help? Make it clear that these dubious sources do not meet Wikipedia reliable-source standards (predatory journals, internet forums, personal blogs), that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners), and that in order to properly discuss the differences, the editors cannot split the discussion among five or six sections, and should centralize discussion as it all pertains to the same issue. Summary of dispute by Farcaller To start of with the dispute points: "misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them" — all the claims were backed by citations where applicable, based on works of Vessiere and, later, Isler. If the claims were made to look like they are not attributed to, the only reason to that was excessive cutting. "as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research" — tulpas are a cultural and mass media phenomenon. The source of truth on the current use of the word likes in the community resources to begin with (although recent scientific research is only welcome) "the dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections." — I will take the blame on that one; I treated the reverted edits as dedicated issues and created a new section per each one to make sure the discussion is focused on the distinct edits. "that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners)" — that wasn't the case. The original text before the edit references Isler's work. Onto my point. The article, historically, dealt with the Buddhist notion of the word tulpa, which is only of historical interest at the moment. The same word is used broadly in mass media to define many other things (e.g. the Spanish version of the article has a long list of "tulpa" used in media for a different context). Additionally, the word has a dedicated meaning for an internet subculture, which is broad enough to be of wikipedia interest and is being researched in a more formal way too. It would be unreasonable to pretend that split doesn't exist. The article was plagued by some community members with e.g. links to tulpa.info, so I took extra care to find more reputable sources that don't include links to "an internet forum". While I did use WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I believe this is a fair use case of tulpa practitioners from mass media describing their personal experiences, which is accepted under self-published source criteria. As of the current moment, there isn't solid scientific backing of the mechanisms of modern day tulpa concept, so the amount of the actual research to be referenced is limited. But as it is a growing social and media factor, I expect that adding the relevant material would be good for the overall article quality. On a side note, I believe some references that are made in the Buddhist part of the article are controversial to themselves. E.g. the reference "The Dalai Lama mentioned in a public statement that his successor might appear via sprul-pa while the current Dalai Lama is still alive" isn't reflected in the original source, that instead talks about tulku (tulku has a dedicated article on wikipedia); while later in the tulpa article the quote says "The power of producing magic formations, tulkus or less lasting and materialized tulpas". It is clear that the primary source of the buddhist part, A. David-Néel saw tulpas and tulku as different concepts, thus some of the references made in the previous parts are incorrect and cannot relate to tulpa (or sprul-pa). Summary of dispute by CliffracerX The things I have problems with are as follows. First, BrightR's treatment of fellow editors edges into the realm of violating the 4th pillar. Community guideline violations don't speak good things about an editor, especially when they're working hard to prove themselves "in the right" - it reeks of trying to discredit PoVs that you don't like. Secondly, "POV-pushing" - the NPoV may be impossible, but BrightR has engaged in just as much POV-pushing against the Tulpas community as Farcaller and Seteleechete have pushed for it. BrightR's edits that trample the Tulpa community don't get reverted, but our edits that try to provide open-minded representation of a widely-misunderstood topic will get reverted and BrightR will call us POVpushers on the talk page. Again, the fourth pillar is violated. Thirdly, the idea that there can't be more representation of the community's ideals. This is maybe not appropriate for an edit dispute, but the fact that so many people say "no, we can't share more of their PoV!" strikes an uncomfortable note. Wikipedia is the first line of information for plenty of people, and it discredits Wikipedia itself, the modern Tulpas community, and even the occult community, to cram all these separate ideas into one page, with so little info on what the practical end-result of any idea might be. People don't have a frame of reference for Tulpas in any of the senses described in the article, so dedicating so much space to the history and so little to the practical end-results (e.g, the appearance of 2 people, 1 brain) means that people will come in looking for info because they found out a friend has Tulpas, and leave none the wiser for it - a critical failure of what makes Wikipedia great. Basically; I think BrightR is engaging in just as much POVpushing as he accuses others of, and that until more "Wikipedia acceptable" information is available (e.g, more papers in the vein of Isler's that actually study the topic, that aren't put up on bad journals, get external reviews, etc), and while the team continues to side with people like BrightR, then the modern definition section will remain of questionable neutrality, and provide very little information that's practical to a curious reader - it may be for the best that it just be removed outright. Summary of dispute by 96.63.57.115/Tulpabug I should probably register an actual account if I am going to be involved in an actual dispute discussion. Anyhow, The article in question has always been plagued by inaccuracies and such. As a notable phenomenon a lot of people are interested in, it would be nice if Wikipedia's coverage of the phenomenon were accurate. I recently created a discussion thread on the topic on the talk page, talking about what I believe is the single biggest inaccuracy in the article, a very incorrect portrayal of the link between tulpas and Buddhism. I feel sorry for probably antagonising some people in the process of airing my frustrations. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Edit: After some reflection, I feel the reason I came here is not the issue at stake in this debate. So I will try to comment on that as a third party briefly. Two main editors, BrightR, and Farcaller. BrightR is overstepping their authority by making arbitrary reversions of Farcaller's work without sufficient justification. Farcaller is terrible at arguing. I wouldn't be surprised if he just gave up at this point. One core issue is the reliability of Ister's paper which has been incorrectly measured by both parties in different directions. (1) Reliability by publishing. It is officially published. However, the journal is alleged to have an improper review process. The evidence put forward for this is low to moderate in strength. (2) Reliability by reputation. The idea that Ister's reputation must be based on academic achievement is obviously false. However, it is also the most objective measure possible, so it is a shame he wrote the paper while in high school. Nonetheless, amongst the core expert group of tulpas, tulpas and tulpamancers, Ister is considered a leading authority. (3) Reliability by integrity of the content. Ister's paper is new, so it lacks independent confirmation of the reliability of the content in terms of being cited or being reviewed in other articles. However, this evidence will be created over time. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Name change to tulpabug Tulpabug (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been extensive discussion on the talk page and all the parties have been notified. The discussion however has been broken up into several sections. A volunteer may go through the discussion and open this dispute. The parties are requested to refrain from editing the page concerned in the meanwhile. Other participants who have been notified but are yet to file their summary statements are requested to do so within 48 hours. Those not willing to participate can simply state so in their summary sections above. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC) It's been over 48 hours and everybody presented their side of the dispute (except Seteleechete who wasn't a part of the continuing dispute, only the initial dispute). If anyone wants to step in, now's the time. Bright☀ 12:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: I've removed Seteleechete as they are not part of the ongoing dispute; I've also updated the IP to Tulpabug. Additionally, as the person who provided the third opinion prior to this DRN post, I will not be moderating this discussion. Nihlus 15:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. Are the participants interested in and agreeable to moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC) I voiced my concerns on the content in my statement above. Farcaller (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Apologies for commenting on editors in my dispute summary. I can restrict my contributions to objective analysis of reference material and article format going forward. Tulpabug (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will try to act as the moderator. I don't know anything about the subject matter, and I expect the editors to explain the factual content to the extent that it is important. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and follow the rules. I will assume that you have read them and that you agree to follow them. In particular, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment only on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are about how to improve the article (or about what should be left alone)? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors I'm somewhat unclear about how much tulpas existed before the modern western community. By researching available sources, I was able to conclude the idea is a derivation of thoughtforms out of theosophy, and not based on Buddhist meditations. However, it is far harder to find reliable sources from before the modern incarnation. I do have one correspondent who was part of a tulpa community from the seventies, but I have seen no documentation of this at all. The only document I found is the infamous Bearden paper. Hmm, improving the article... It's missing an external links section. There should be a history section for stuff that happened in the past. The modern western tulpas section merits around ten paragraphs, and possibly subsections. There are approximately two tulpa studies that are similar to Vessiere, the Ister paper and the Adlestrop paper, both could be used as references, despite being primary sources. To go along with the vice article and the Savage minds blog post, probably it is worth adding the paranormal underground magazine article as another secondary source. There are also several other articles and studies, but I'd have to think about them before recommending any. There are also a bunch of self published sources of very high quality, FAQ pages, guides, books, summary reports and such, but I understand these sources should be ignored if we can find higher objectively reliable sources. Tulpabug (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Tulpas, as they're understood now, didn't really exist before the modern western community was created; they basically lifted the name from Tulpas in Tibetan Buddhism, and a few similar ideas/techniques, but just sort of went off and did its own thing afterwards. There's a reason why people keep arguing for it to be split off into a new article. As for improving the article, well...there needs to be more citations for user research, regardless of "reliability". There's so little information available that matches the "reliability" request BrightR makes that there simply isn't enough to make an informed conclusion; it's like trying to write a study based on a survey that only got 25 answers. You might have vague inklings of the bigger picture, but the precision is INCREDIBLY low. Given how hard it is for Wikipedians to be neutral, especially on controversial topics like these, and the lack of "acceptable" data, it really does seem best to trim the article down and let readers draw their own conclusions. At the very least, there needs to be more citations to well-established communities, as the section currently dedicates very little space to explaining what the idea actually is, and quite a bit of it to the history of the idea, social taboos, etc. There's very little frame of reference for what plurality actually is, outside of strongly-stigmatized depictions in media and the likes (like that of DID in Shyamalan's Split) - because of it, including more information on the effective results of Tulpamancy would be important; i.e, for all intents and purposes, people with Tulpas share a brain with several others, regardless of how real they, or their Tulpas are. As it stands right now, there's a strong stigma against accepting Tulpas baked into the section itself, and that needs to go; Wikipedia is not for judging the validity of people's life experiences. The article, as it appears BrightR would like to see it, does a lot of that; utilizing the argument of "science" to invalidate Tulpas, thereby maintaining a "neutral" point of view whilst furthering the harmful stigmas surrounding the concept. CliffracerX (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Maybe I don't understand something, but this doesn't appear to be an article content dispute of the sort where moderated discussion leading to compromise is in order. It appears that both editors are saying that substantial improvements to the article are needed. My suggestion would be for both editors to be bold and edit the article, and discuss their edits, and see if they then get something that is better, or then get specific disagreements. Are the editors willing to try to edit the article boldly to improve it, rather than just having discussion leading to compromise? If any editor has any specific suggestions, please state them. Otherwise we can resolve this by saying that the editors agree to edit collaboratively and boldly. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) There seem to be two main points at issue here. One is the degree to which a Buddhist origin can be claimed for the modern Western Tulpa movement. The other is (in the context of a WP:FRINGE movement with very little in the way of RS) the extent to which non-RS can be used here to describe the beliefs and practices of the movement; mixed with this is the question to what extent those beliefs and practices should be described in an encyclopedic article. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors We're past the point of bold edits—my edits are keep being reverted to the point where I don't see myself contributing more without third-party chiming in. I see this article from a perspective of a curious cultural and mass-media phenomena, and I worked on adding a number of references to make that point. Arguably, some of the sources weren't of the best quality, but the problem there is that the modern tulpa phenomenon doesn't lie in the field thoroughly researched by either religion (buddhism) or science (psychology). There were a few attempts to add the point on what tulpamancy means for modern practitioners but all of those were eventually rejected, based on that there's so substantial scientific background for those. Despite that, the community performs actual research done to the best of the scientific ability (you don't have to have a degree to be a scientist, you only need to follow the rules to make your experiments reliable and repeatable). My position is that the modern tulpa references, including the research paper of Isler, do belong to the article. On the contrary, the buddhist part might need some cleaning. I didn't pay it much attention before, but when I started digging through the referenced articles, I noticed that there's a confusion of terminology, e.g. swapping tulpa for tulku at random. If tulpas are not seen as a distinct concept, then the whole buddhist section would be better removed, as the article on tulku is written way better, allowing this article to carry only the historical references and the modern use. Farcaller (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC) "It appears that both editors are saying that substantial improvements to the article are needed." There are four editors in this dispute. To clarify: Until BrightR comments, you have only seen one side of this dispute. I personally believe the rest of us can resolve our individual differences through the talk page discussions alone. The issue of WP:Fringe is an interesting one. As it is hard to define in this subject area. It is easy to believe, for example, that the entire subject area of tulpas is a WP:fringe, because it is a fringe movement of sorts. A subculture. However, within this and related subcultures, there is considerable diversity of belief and theory. It needs more study for us to get a good handle on which of the beliefs and theories are fringe and which are dominant. Tulpabug (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC) The other is (in the context of a WP:FRINGE movement with very little in the way of RS) the extent to which non-RS can be used here to describe the beliefs and practices of the movement; mixed with this is the question to what extent those beliefs and practices should be described in an encyclopedic article. That is precisely my issue with the edits. The selected sources cannot be used, and the way they're used puts far too much emphasis on the personal experiences of tulpa practitioners, and falsely presents them as scientific research. A reddit comment "by a tulpa" cannot be presented as scientific findings. A fictional memoir cannot be presented as an objective autobiography. Unattributed quotes cannot be attributed to a scientific study. A paper by an undergrad in a predatory journal cannot be used to make any scientific or medical claims. Synthesis cannot be used at all, especially it can't be used to make medical claims. the degree to which a Buddhist origin can be claimed for the modern Western Tulpa movement. The Buddhist origin, whether we like it or not, is firmly established by the references; in fact Tulpabug supplied a rather thorough peer-reviewed article that explains exactly how the modern term came to be: "Although the tulpa is associated with Tibetan Buddhism, philological and archival evidence suggests that the encounter between Tibetan Buddhism and Theosophy—involving both Western Orientalists and their Asian informants and translators—shifted the meaning of certain Buddhist terms and concepts. As a result, concepts of "emanations" found in Mahayana Buddhism came to resemble Theosophical metaphysics as well as Western tropes of creations run amok found in such stories as the golem legend and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). It appears that many of the core features of the tulpa are––like Slender Man––the product of Western paranormal folklore." (Mikles, Laycock, 2015) Nobody is suggesting that the Buddhist concept is identical to the Theosophist concept or the modern concept, only that they share an ancestry. From Buddhism to Theosophy to modern paranormal. Bright☀ 18:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Okay. We will start back at the beginning. Please read the rules again, including the rule against back-and-forth discussion, and the rule to be concise. Do not quote each other. Will each editor please state, again, in one or two paragraphs, whether they have any specific issues with the content of the article, and whether they think that discussion leading to compromise will be useful, or whether editors should be encouraged to edit boldly? I think that we will open up the article to editing, so ignore the rule that says not to edit the article, but that edits must be discussed here. There will be no "pure reverting". If you disagree with another editor's edits, either provide something better, or request that other editors comment. We may at the end have to rely on a Request for Comments. Now, will each editor please state, concisely, what they think needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors Well, the side banner that says "part of a series on Buddhism" really gets to me. Personally, I'd like to see what some other editors can do first. I think another useful resource would be the making friends podcast. If radio based investigative journalism is allowed under the rules? https://gimletmedia.com/episode/74-making-friends/ Oh, question. I think the rules say that tulpa.info and tulpa.io should be included as external links as they contain important information of central relevance to tulpas, but do not meet the criteria of reliable sources, so long as neither site is referenced in the body of the article, but reddit tulpas can't be, because it is a social media site? Tulpabug (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC) The article as it stands right now is mostly dedicated to the history of Tulpas, which is of very little informative value to someone who just wants to know what a Tulpa is. I've said it before, and I'll say again: Wikipedia is not for judging other people's life experiences. Previous iterations of the section have had strongly-judging tones, and the current version is so solely dedicated to the history of the idea from a NPoV that there's no info left that would be of use to a curious would-be reader who's been introduced to the idea by a friend. History is important, I won't dispute that, but with as complex an idea as this, and as many people who would go to Wikipedia to find out what it is, it's shameful how bad it is at actually telling people what modern Tulpas are, by nature of being too vague. I believe the Backfire Effect comes into strong play here, as most people view the idea of more than one person per brain as abnormal, something "to be fixed" - not only that, but it's a core belief for many of them. Tulpas challenge that belief, meaning, understandably, people fight back with arguments of scientific illegitimacy, comparisons to mental illness, saying Tulpas are just glorified imaginary friends, or even just to accuse anyone who advocates for giving them a fair shake at being represented of being a POVpusher. All of these can be used to "invalidate" their existence, thereby "resolving" the threat. Because of this, normal discussion and attempts to compromise are incredibly difficult, and editing boldly is nigh impossible, as those bold edits will be reverted for the above reasons of scientific illegitimacy/mental illness/POV-pushing/etc. TLDR; I'd like to see the article become more informative to the average reader (e.g, not 95% history exposition) and more open to the experiences of people with Tulpas, however, due to strongly-held biases, bold editing and civil discussion are rather difficult. CliffracerX (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC) First, the introductory part of the article must include a notion on the modern practitioners. Previously it included references to Vessiere, the Vice article and Isler, now it's completely removed, which biases the article towards Buddhism. Second, the Buddhism section must be checked for references as thoroughly as the "western" one. E.g. the article says "The Dalai Lama mentioned in a public statement that his successor might appear via sprul-pa while the current Dalai Lama is still alive" referencing this external article that says: "the Dalai Lama released a public statement ... In the 2011 statement he also noted that it was completely feasible that his successor could appear via emanation (i.e. sprul pa) and thus be identified before his own death", but the original public statement says: "It seems the Tibetan custom of applying the epithet ‘Tulku’ (Buddha’s Emanation Body)" directly referencing tulku and has zero references to tulpa or sprul-pa, which means that savageminds.org made an incorrect connection, misattributing the quote. It cannot be used for the wiki article. Third, I want to see the Isler references removed here to be restored. While "Isler is not a real scientist", their work shows all attributes of the formal scientific approach. Fourth, I want the references to reddit and vk social groups on tulpas to be restored back in the context of community sizes. Both have over fifteen thousand users, which gives a different light to the number of modern practitioners. Fifth, I want to include results of some of the research provided by reddit community effort. While those weren't published in a reputable scientific source, care must be taken to not include the conclusions they stated blindly; though, the raw numbers are as good as blind internet survey can be. They have both raw material and analysis data published, and it can be used to give overall ideas of the community direction. Sixth, the modern practice needs better notion of what modern practitioners consider a tulpa. There was a blanket ban to include any references to tulpa.info, the biggest community to date, and I won't push against removing that, but there are other great aggregations of the communal knowledge that I've found in the network, e.g. tulpa.io. While those, again, are not scientific publications, they represent the community in the view of mass media, and I believe, are of the appropriate quality to represent the community history and ideas. Seventh, the section on tulpas in movies and other media needs to be restored, with appropriate context. There are examples of such section in e.g. Spanish wiki article. The reason why it is important is that the word 'tulpa' is often used for horror stories, misaligned with both historical Buddhist use, and modern practitioner use. There should be a clear line drawn between modern tulpamancy practice and paranormal. Farcaller (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Hello, I was part of the initial dispute. Sorry I am joining so late in this discussion but this topic was causing me stress so I cut it off for a while. What I want to see is a piece that actually describes what modern tulpas is about. And I don't want to necessarily present the contemporary practitioners view of tulpas as scientific fact but rather as an explanation of what modern contemporary tulpas are described as/what the practice is described as. I think a section about modern tulpas should contain descriptions of what the modern tulpa practice claims to be about. I tried to make this differentiation in [10] and I don't mind seeing changes in wording for it to become more neutral. But so far it seems like any kind of description of the modern practice is seen as unacceptable. The section should be informative about the practice and actually describe it's content or a section should be made to describe it. That it's undue or that there aren't sources that describe what what the modern practice is about is also erroneous. Never mind the large primary communities describing it this way tulpa.info, tulpa.io, reddit.com/r/tulpas(note, while I wouldn't necessarily use these as sources beyond showing scope I just want to reiterate how absurd I think the claim that an explanation of the contemporary practice being undue is, considering the scope of the practice and the section being about modern tulpa practice.) There are also plenty of other sources that describe what the modern practice describes the practice as, such as Veissière, Vice, Isler, Savage Minds, etc. Seteleechete (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Per the moderator comment, I did some edits to the article outlining my notes above. I will do the bigger edit to the "western tulpamancy" section in the sandbox, given that one was the source of major controversy, and will link it here to have a discussion first. I hope that's acceptable? Farcaller (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) We should be noting changes here? I made three major edits to the introduction, and left extensive edit summaries due to their sensitive nature. I also added a history section. Tulpabug (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC) If you disagree with another editor's edits, either provide something better, or request that other editors comment. This will bias the edits completely in the direction of unreliable sources. The mediation has failed, the false attribution of information to scientific studies happened again: A study on the subject of tulpas conducted in 2015 classified them as "imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice". That is pure weasel words, no such study exists, the cited source is a survey which makes unattributed claims and can't be used. I'm sorry, the disregard here to reliable sources shows bad faith and it can't be mediated in good faith. Bright☀ 10:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't believe this is an act of a good faith, given that there was a clear statement to not do reverts blindly. Instead, a several unconnected edits were reverted in full, even though the reasoning was provided only for one of them. Even the grammatical and punctuation fixes were reverted. If you have issues with any one of the edits, we are open to discuss it here until we can settle on the common ground, but please stop reverting the article without any regard to your fellow editors. Farcaller (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Also, if that single quote is the only concern, I am fine with re-wording it. The original quote says: "Tulpas, a term reportedly borrowed from Tibetan Buddhism, are imaginary companions who are said to have achieved full sentience after being conjured through ‘thought-form’ meditative practice." I am ok with using this line unmodified in the article, if that helps with the concern of weasel words. The referenced article is a reputable source. Farcaller (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Notice: I feel this has escalated into a disciplinary matter with the complete reversion of my edits. Though I would invite feedback on why they were reverted. Tulpabug (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Since the mediation has failed we can either continue this on the talk page or, more productively, I suggest you consult the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. To give you an example, let's say the opening paragraph of a published, peer-reviewed online survey among 200 people says "it is said oranges are advanced beings of extraterrestrial origin". You CANNOT then use that as a source in a Wikipedia article for the claim "A study on the subject of oranges conducted in 2015 classified them as advanced beings of extraterrestrial origin." You can only use the actual results of the survey, since they are attributable to the published, peer-reviewed research. Doesn't matter if you quote the words verbatim; the survey itself does not attribute those claims, and claiming that a "scientific study classified them" as such is misleading weasel words. It's a survey, not a scientific study into the classification of oranges. Add to that the re-insertion of the reddit comment reference, it all makes it appear not in good faith since you were told again and again and pointed to the specific Wikipedia policies against such inappropriate usage of citations, weasel words, and unreliable sources. Bright☀ 14:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Can you please address the other reverts you've made? It is useless to discuss anything if you are focused on one specific issue you find incoherent. I assumed we'd use mediation as a process to sort out the article as a whole. I can move forward and agree with removing the paragraph in question completely, if this is the only point you cannot settle with. I cannot move on if you keep ignoring edits to other parts, including restoring Buddhist sources that are not relevant to the article at all. Farcaller (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC) References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Shield_(professional_wrestling)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Leo0505 on 01:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute The Shield (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Leo0505 (talk · contribs) WarMachineWildThing (talk · contribs) Dispute overview i have tried to add honorary member Kurt Angle to the mix, but user 'WarMachineWildThing' keeps reverting my edits, i would have liked to message him first but i cannot seem to message him. i have cited proof of the changes but he have been reverting without question. he seems to want to start a edit war, i dont want this to occur i would like this page to be as accurate as possible, but this user will not allow me to do this... Have you tried to resolve this previously? i would have liked t message him, but he seems to have disabled this feature How do you think we can help? help open the discussion, or stop him from reverting accurate changes Summary of dispute by WarMachineWildThing Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Shield_(professional_wrestling) 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.

User talk:Sport and politics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Sport and politics on 07:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Sport and politics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sport and politics (talk · contribs) John (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A minor editing conflict arose on the page Tim Loughton regarding the use of the Daily Mirror as a source. The source was originally added as the only source for a section of content. It was removed by one user and re-added by me. The user who originally removed the Daily Mirror source stated the information needed additional/better sourcing, which was provided and the Daily Mirror Source was one of the sources used. The original removing user, posted a message on my talk page, and alerted John, who came in a dumped without any explanation on my talk page a “Mandatory Notice”. To which I responded asking for explanation. John provided a cursory explanation, to which I expressed my feelings regarding their actions. John then proceeded to go on about “just doing my job” and “ArbCom restrictions”. All the while not actually making it clear what the issue was. The link was to a BLP arbitration decision, which did not explain what John was complaining about. John was in fact complaining about the use of any tabloid as a source in BLPs. This was not and was never made known in anyway by John. It was simply expected to be known by myself. What John was actually referring to, which before this incident I had never heard of was a decision on BLP’s regarding the Daily Mail which can be found as WP:DAILYMAIL. John then did not interact with me again until a block by John was imposed on me, without any explanation. John simply placed a 48-hour block notice on my talk page. I am very upset by this turn of actions by John, as the thing john should have done in my opinion was to attempt to educate and make aware of the issues at hand. What John did was impose punishments for previously acceptable editing. The edit conflict that was occurring had ceased before John imposed the block, and a discussion on the talk page of the Tim Loughton article had been ongoing. This was not a preventative measure by John, it was a punitive action. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. This was escalated by John to make other fourm inappropriate How do you think we can help? I feel there has been a serious breakdown of general courtesy by John over this issue. They have not acted in a way which is constructive, and have imposed a block without providing an explanation directly to myself. They have been vague in their original warnings, and have not given any though to alternative resolutions to the issue I would like to discuss this matter with John, without other parties making the situation worse, and diverting the discussion, this appears to be the only recourse Summary of dispute by John Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Sport and politics 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.

Telaga

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 68.134.38.244 on 14:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Telaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved No one else (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Under Categorization section of the Telaga caste home page, the following content is incorrect, Categorisation In 2002, K. Srinivasulu describes Telaga as a "backward peasant caste".[7]. Also, Selig S. Harrison noted that, in the 1955 legislature of what was then Andhra State, the Telagas had 16 legislators, next only to the Reddis and Kammas. He states that they formed a "newly active political force". However, despite their strength, the Telagas did not hold any ministerial posts.[ Correction - They are classified as Forward caste Also, Kapu and its sub castes is more powerful than what was mentioined by Mr. Selig Harrison Have you tried to resolve this previously? I did consult the community leaders of Telaga caste and they mentioned they are classified as forward caste today How do you think we can help? I request admin to correct it by adding a status column to say they are forward caste today Summary of dispute by No one else Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Telaga discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by JPark99 on 22:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Toronto#Changes to the First Paragraph of the Lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JPark99 (talk · contribs) Saboteurest (talk · contribs) Alaney2k (talk · contribs) Johnny Au (talk · contribs) Hwy43 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over proposed changes to the lead section of the Toronto article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted a discussion on the talk page, also requested a third opinion and was directed here. How do you think we can help? Provide an outside, neutral opinion. Summary of dispute by Saboteurest My main concerns with the lead is that the language has an advertising/puffery tone and the references do not back-up the claims in the lead. I tried to tone it down to be more neutral sounding. Here are just a few examples: Most populous - This term is used three time in the first paragraph. I tried to combine this into one usage. Heavily urbanized region - Heavily urbanized to whom? Much of it looks like what most Asian countries would call the countryside. It contains some of the country's most prosperous farming land. Heavily urbanized is a big stretch. Not referenced An international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture - Toronto is no doubt a Canadian business centre, but International centre? It is also unreferenced. Toronto is sometimes mocked for being completely void of arts and culture, now the article is claiming it's an international centre of arts and culture. Again, not referenced. Recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan - Recognized by whom? Toronto is undeniably multicultural but the reference provided does not say it is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Not referenced. Toronto is known for its many skyscrapers and high-rise buildings - Known by whom? Dubai and New York are known for their skyscrapers. The reference speaks about construction of condo buildings and how the future skyline could potentially appear. Nothing about Toronto being known for its skyscrapers. Not referenced 140 independently unique and clearly defined official neighbourhoods - Toronto's neighbourhoods aren't overly unique and most blend into each other seamlessly as the reference discusses. Again, statement not referenced. A prominent centre - Prominent? More puffery. Not referenced. In fact the entire last paragraph is poorly written. Most major cities are home to diverse economies. Most of that paragraph is not lead worthy and much of the facts belong in their respective sections. The Golden Horseshoe is an arbitrary area used by the province with many independent cities and towns which includes Toronto. I'm not sure the lead is the place to introduce this area that includes many other cities that have no connection to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saboteurest (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Also by international standards Toronto's housing is still quite affordable. According to the Telegraph it ranks 20th worldwide. Hardly lead noteworthy. But definitely worth a mention in the article somewhere. I would vote against adding this in the lead. Saboteurest (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alaney2k Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My concern is mostly that the quality of the text could be improved. I think that, mainly, having the most-populous text, etc., the positive text is normal for an article of this type. I think that it is important to be objective too and the text comes across as self-important. As someone who has visited most of Canada, lived elsewhere in Canada, I do agree that Toronto by itself is the most important city in Canada in many fields, and in some ways, (like English TV) dominates Canada, but it's not by a "country mile". Mostly, it is a fast-growing, prosperous city. It has problems - homelessness, poverty, income disparity, automobile traffic, public transit gap and I would like to see those reflected in the lead. There's a bit too much about ranking. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Johnny Au Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Though I'm a major contributor to the article, I am seeking consensus. I am not asking much. That is all. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I have added an editor. The filing party should notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - I have added an editor and notified non-filing participants of discussion. Nihlus 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Saboteurest has not edited in over a week. If they do not respond to messages soon, we will move on. @JPark99, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: Do you feel this DR is necessary in light of Saboteurest's inactivity? If so, we can continue it; otherwise, I will close it. Feel free to respond below this message. Nihlus 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I would like Saboteurest to have the chance to have their say. I agree fully with Alaney2k's comments in this discussion, and agree with the changes proposed. I'd like to add that the extremely high housing prices in Toronto could be reflected in the lead along with other problems the city faces, as it has created a major housing crisis. My disagreements with Saboteurest have been primarily about the removal of statistics and other data about the city, and language used to describe the city. I think it would be beneficial to keep this discussion open for one more week, to give everyone a chance to comment. JPark99 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I agree with extending the discussion by a week to be fair. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Although, not customary, I will keep this thread open for the next seven days to allow Saboteurest a chance to respond per the agreement of participants. The case will be on hold until then. Nihlus 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: I will act as the moderator in this discussion. A reminder to those involved that we all have the goal of improving the article. Please familiarize yourself with my rules; your involvement in this discussion implies your agreement to follow them. The two competing lead sentences are as follows: Version 1 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ ⓘ, locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ⓘ) is the most populous city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world. Version 2 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ ⓘ, locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ⓘ) is a Canadian city and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a city population of 2,731,571 and a metropolitan population of 5,928,040, it is the most populous city and metropolitan area in Canada. A global city, Toronto is a centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural cities in the world. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, which version they prefer and why and, if applicable, how it aligns with the guideline WP:LEAD? As a reminder, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Nihlus 01:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) @Alaney2k and Johnny Au: I'm still waiting for your comments on this. Nihlus 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) @Johnny Au: The consensus will be formed by the participants in this discussion. Waiting to decide after the DRN process is complete is not helpful and will only get this closed as premature. Nihlus 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Nihlus: I made my decision. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors Version 2. It is clear, concise, and cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows as per the guidelines as version 1 does. Saboteurest (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I prefer version 1. It provides an outline of the article with basic facts, it establishes context, and it explains the notability of the topic in summarizing the major points of the article. The first sentence clearly identifies the topic of the article, in that it is about Canada's most populous city which is also the capital city of Ontario. The second sentence provides context to the city's population as it identifies the exact population figure of the city, the year from which that population figure was obtained from the official census, and how it relates to other major cities in North America. The third sentence provides a brief factual overview of the Toronto area as a whole. The fourth sentence briefly and factually describes what Toronto is, by stating it's primary economic activity and a brief description of the people who make up the city. JPark99 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I am waiting for consensus first before I decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I have decided to go with Version 1. It's more comprehensive. Did you know that most Wikipedia readers don't read past the lead section? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I prefer version 2. I don't see the importance of the external regions, etc. to readers from outside Toronto. I don't see the mention of the other cities as warranted, either. Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator We've established which versions each participants favors; however, some of you didn't speak to the applicability of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The main part I am focused on is "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows." @Saboteurest and Alaney2k: Can you explain how withholding information from the reader in the lead is beneficial given that most readers won't read the entire article? Can you explain how the inclusion of the information in Version 1 is teasing the reader and isn't a concise overview of the city? @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: The problem seems to come from the middle two sentences. If you could keep one of the two, which would it be? Would a rewording of the other one make it a better fit for the lead or should it be removed entirely? Line 1: With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Line 2: Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. I think once I have the responses to these questions, I can look at a potential alternative to satisfy all parties. Nihlus 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Hwy43: Input is welcome from all editors. To answer your question, this is just for the initial paragraph in the section. Sentences that don't belong in the first paragraph could possibly be moved to the others in the lead. Nihlus 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC) @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: This will be closed if there is no further participation. Nihlus 03:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors Sorry. Busy at work. My problem is that both are a bit overly detailed. I would keep line 1, but I would probably drop the list of cities. I would add that it is the center of the golden horseshoe, though I think "heavily" is an imprecise subjective word. I would just say large. In other words, anchors the Golden Horsehoe, a large urbanized region of 9.2 million people. Alaney2k (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC) My apologies as well. There's sections of both that I would like to see included, but they could be combined. I think version 3 proposed by Hwy43 is a great compromise. JPark99 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC) May I chime in? If no please excuse as I haven’t participated in this process before. Both editors have some valid points. There is some repetition that can and should be addressed (e.g. populous) as well as some subjective rather than objective adjectives that could be struck (e.g. heavily, international, etc.). The lead doesn't need to go into details of the Golden Horseshoe or specifically list the larger cities in North America. That is what the wikilinks for the Golden Horseshoe and List of North American cities by population articles are for. Another thing that should not get lost in this is, IIRC, the lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the article without references. The references occur later in the article when the summarized content in the lead is mentioned. So if there is content elsewhere within the article stating Toronto is regarded as one of the more cosmopolitan cities in the world, with a proper reference to support, the statement within the lead could stay without repetition of the reference. Same applies to multicultural. I would prefer to be bold and suggest the following version 3. It answers the "what" and "where" up front, then delves into size before closing with the global city content. Previously, the "where" was a tad disjointed and missing the obvious fact that it is on the shore of Lake Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Version 3 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ ⓘ, locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ⓘ) is the most populous city city in Canada and the provincial capital city of the Canadian province of Ontario. It is located within the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571 residents in 2016, it is the largest city in Canada and fourth-largest city in North America by population. after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Also in 2016, the Toronto is the centre of census metropolitan area (CMA), the majority of which is within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), had a population of 5,928,040, making it Canada’s the most populous CMA metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world. Further to the above, I seek some clarity. The lead is currently four paragraphs. Regardless of whatever version achieves consensus, are we replacing the full four paragraphs with just the one? I am not certain this lengthy article can be sufficiently summarized in just one lead paragraph of three to five sentences. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC) I do like this version, though I think the part around the CMA and Golden Horseshoe is overly detailed. I don't see it as so important to the understanding of Toronto, to give so much prominence to the area -around- it. Yes, it is within a large urbanized area, but too much stats. Alaney2k (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Version 3 proposed by Hwy43 is a great compromise. It's succinct yet comprehensive. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC) I have no stake in this, I just have this page on my watchlist. I think this is OK, my only change would be to "fourth most populous city in NA" not "largest city by population." Sir Joseph (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ravi Shankar_(poet)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by SiphoB on 04:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ravi Shankar (poet) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SiphoB (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an editor ScrapIronIV who seems to be biased and non-neutral with respect to this subject. Multiple sourced and verified notable achievements have been added to this person's page and this editor persists in removing them. If anyone makes a change, he refers to them as a "sockpuppet." This editor should not be allowed to edit this particular page any longer and someone with more neutrality to look into it. Another problem is that there is false information contrary to what is on the BLP noticeboard. It says the subject was accused or guilty of theft of school funds, which is simply untrue. The editor claims it is true because he's quoting a source on Fox News who SAID it was true; but in fact, simple research (such as a call to the CCSU Adminstration) reveals that is not true. Also, the fact of this subject's wrongful arrest in New York seems relevant especially since it was reported on NPR, Hartford Courant and elsewhere. Yet this information is persistantly suppressed by the very same editor who wants to serve as arbiter of what is notable or not. National Public Radio? PBS? State Arts Grants? These are indisputably notable and the continual removal of these seems like vandalism. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Communicating with the editor ScrapIronIV - have made changes reflecting accurate, sourced information in accordance to BLP policy. He keeps reverting them. How do you think we can help? I would block ScrapIronIV or at the very least make it so that he no longer as the right to edit the Ravi_Shankar_(poet) page. Thanks for your help. Talk:Ravi Shankar_(poet) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Saiph121 on 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)#Overcategorization (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Saiph121 (talk · contribs) SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) Betty Logan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Issues in regards to the following categories that are being disputed in it's inclusion to the main article on its categories: Category:2010s LGBT-related films Category:American LGBT-related films Category:Feminist films Category:Films about bibliophilia Category:Films about narcissism Category:Historical romance films Category:LGBT-related musical films Category:Witchcraft in film Despite being provided with sources as well accurate facts, they're considering these categories not to be listed as these were "not defining" which is the notion i'm disputing with. Have you tried to resolve this previously? a consensus was made but turns out to be biased. How do you think we can help? get into the middle ground to resolve this issue and allow the disputed categories to be listed accordingly without doubt or dispute as these disputed had accurate proofs and reliable sources to prove its inclusion. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. At Talk:Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)#Wonder_Woman_a_feminist_movie.3F, Talk:Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)#Presence_of_Telekinesis_in_the_Wonder_Woman_film, Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), my talk page, their talk page, other editors talk pages and perhaps a few other places, several editors have tried to explain to Saiph121 (sometimes editing as 112.210.7.228) that WP:CATDEF states that categories should be defining characteristics: those that "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Saiph121 has responded by providing single sources that discuss "feminism in Wonder Woman" or similar and apparently not understanding that one source is not sources commonly and consistently "defining" the film with that term.[11][12][13][14] At bottom, I think there is simply a language issue at work here. My notification of this discussion: "Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply."[15] Similarly, this entry simply made no sense. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roscelese Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Better comply", really? Well, it seems pretty clear to me where this is going to go, since Saiph himself admits that literally no one agrees with him. I first noticed his behavior at Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) but later noticed that he did the same in other articles - adding a laundry list of categories ranging from trivial and non-defining at best to unsourced/original research. Essentially he's trying to do with categories something that should be done, if at all, in article text, eg. categorizing B&B as a "film about composers" because there is a side character who is a music master transformed into a harpsichord or a "film about narcissism" because a side character is self-centered. As I explained to him, this would make Wikipedia impossible to navigate through the category system. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez Basically the dispute is about how to practically implement Help:Defining and WP:Overcategorization in this and related articles. One side is for being fairly strict about the "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" rule and the other side for a somewhat looser practice followed in a lot of fiction articles that categorize pretty much every plot detail, story theme, setting that has an existing category defined basically to populate the category with articles that touch on the subject of that category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) As to the question posed below by Nihlus, I think the dispute has effectively reached consensus on the article talk page with one dissenter. I don't see value in continuing beyond that discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Betty Logan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not involved in any dispute at this article. I have never even edited it. A request was left at WT:FILM for input at a discussion about the use of categories in the article and I contributed my viewpoint to help break the deadlock in the debate. My recommendation is to let the discussion run its course at the article talk page and in a week or so request an admin closure. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: @Saiph121, SummerPhDv2.0, Roscelese, Geraldo Perez, and Betty Logan: Since there is what seems to be a relatively productive discussion going on the talk page right now, I am inclined to close this pending the result of those discussions. Parties, do you believe dispute resolution is necessary in this case? Or do you feel the current conversation on the talk page is enough? Feel free to respond above in your summaries. Nihlus 05:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC) As I understand it the purpose of DR is to find a way forward when every other avenue has come to a standstill. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Discussion is still progressing on the talk page from what I can see and if that doesn't resolve the issue an RFC would be the next logical step. Betty Logan (talk) 07:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing and murdered Indigenous women

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DivaNtrainin on 00:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Missing and murdered Indigenous women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DivaNtrainin (talk · contribs) Fyddlestix (talk · contribs) CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two editors want the introduction to this Wikipedia page to prominently feature information that is inconsistent with known sources, missleading, and inflammatory. There has been compromise made to include sources that they want, and attempts made to edit the information to meet their needs but they have not explained why they have a problem with my edits. I have attempted to start a discussion on the Talk page to get them to explain why they don't agree with my edits. They don't want to discuss editing the Wikipedia page. They just keep mentioning it's a good source, without even looking at the source or the discussion. Now they just want to discuss the blocking and consensus policy instead of really discussing what information can be added or altered to meet my needs. What would cause me to compromise and give in to their edits is if they would just provide more information, or more statistics, or more studies, or some rationale as to why they have a problem with my edits. They could even give an example of some of the things they want to see. We are on the verge of an edit war. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to draw them out in the Talk page. At one point, I mentioned that I would avoid editing for 24 hours to get them to explain their point and/or look for more references How do you think we can help? What you can do is advise them to explain their edits. They need to provide suggestions. They need to add more information. They need to add statistics or studies. They need to do something more than keep saying "good sources, good sources, good sources" over and over. Summary of dispute by Fyddlestix Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CorbieVreccan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Missing and murdered Indigenous women discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. I have added an editor to the list. The filing party should notify the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Saiph121 on 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Saiph121 (talk · contribs) SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) Betty Logan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The following categories that have been disputed with in its exclusion to the Beauty and the Beast 2017 article: Category:Feminist films Category:Films about narcissism Category:Films about bibliophilia Category:Witchcraft in film Same as with the previous dispute resolution, the notion that these categories not to be listed as these were "not defining" is one statement that have been consistently been challenged. Have you tried to resolve this previously? As mentioned in the previous dispute resolution, a consensus was made but turns out to be biased in which the current consensus is currently ruling out excluding the four following categories from the main article which I am currently challenging its ruling. How do you think we can help? Same as with the previous dispute resolution, get into the middle ground to resolve this issue and allow the disputed categories to be listed accordingly without doubt or dispute as these disputed had accurate proofs and reliable sources to prove its inclusion. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is a solid consensus at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Category:Witchcraft_in_film against Witchcraft in film. Saiph121 disagrees and seemingly does not understand portions of the discussion, !voting repeatedly though repeatedly being asked not to. There is a solid consensus at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Category:Films_about_narcissism against Films about narcissism. Saiph121 disagrees and seemingly does not understand portions of the discussion. There is a weaker consensus at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Category:Feminist_films against Feminist films, strengthened somewhat by several editors having previously reverted Saiph121's repeated additions of the category, both while logged in and under various IPs. Saiph121 disagrees and seemingly does not understand portions of the discussion. There is a new discussion at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Category:Films_about_bibliophilia. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roscelese Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Saiph, what made you think you would be able to singlehandedly overturn consensus here after you failed to do so the first time? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Betty Logan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Feminist films, Films about narcissism, Films about bibliophilia, and Witchcraft in film 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.

User talk:GangofOne

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by GangofOne on 20:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:GangofOne (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved GangofOne (talk · contribs) bd2412 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 45 Possible copyright violations reverted. I have reverted your additions to Bloomberg Billionaires Index and List of members of the Forbes 400 as these appear to be substantial copyright violations. Please note that we can not copy large lists compiled by private intellectual property owners. bd2412 T 16:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Sorry for you. Facts are not copyrightable. GangofOne (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? this page How do you think we can help? legal advice Summary of dispute by bd2412 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Although the information in these lists is factual, the respective businesses (Forbes and Bloomberg) make creative decisions with respect what other information to present (dollar amounts, age of the subject, field of industry). The facts are not protected, but the "selection and arrangement" is. Copying this complete group of information, as was done in this case, is likely actionable under copyright law, and should be avoided. bd2412 T 22:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC) User talk:GangofOne discussion quickie legal question bd2412 says he/she is a lawyer (presumably in USA). I am not a lawyer. bd2412 above talks of author's "creative decisions". It is not clear there are any creative decisions in the original, just practical decisions. I hope others will have lawyerly input, this type of issue happens all the time on Wikipedia. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ruth Coppinger

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by This is Paul on 21:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ruth Coppinger (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved This is Paul (talk · contribs) Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs) Spleodrach (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This is a long-running dispute concerning the subject's political beliefs and allegiances, and how we can describe these in the voice of Wikipedia. Having previously been a member of the Socialist Party of Ireland, Ruth Coppinger was elected to represent the Anti-Austerity Alliance–People Before Profit party in 2014, but it's unclear whether she's still affiliated to her previous party. The dispute began with an editor seeking to describe her as a Trotskyite, but without providing reliable sources. A third editor has also recently become involved in the discussion, and there is now also some disagreement over whether Coppinger belongs to more than one political party, and is engaging in entryism and subtefuge. Again, however, no reliable sources have been provided to support these claims. Indeed, it has been suggested there would be "no confession from her stating that this is her cunning strategy". Plenty of sources describe her as a socialist, but the meaning is ambiguous (i.e., whether she is a socialist or a member of the Socialist Party). Have you tried to resolve this previously? The topic has been discussed at length on the talk page, but without resolution. How do you think we can help? I think the dispute could be resolved by clarifying Wikipedia policy on this matter. Summary of dispute by This is Paul I believe that if there are no reliable sources to support the various theories about Ms Coppinger's political raison d'etre then we should steer clear of the topic, because it violates WP:BLP. Generally, the consensus with issues such as Crossing the floor and Party switching is that the person joining a new political party would cease to be a member of their former party. There are exceptions, but this would need to be supported with reliable sources. Summary of dispute by Laurel Lodged Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Spleodrach Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Ruth Coppinger discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator It appears from reading the talk page that this may have been resolved by discussion there. Will the editors please state whether this matter has been resolved, or whether moderated discussion is needed? If moderated discussion is needed, please read and comply with my ground rules. Also, if there is still a need for moderated discussion, please state, in one paragraph, what you see as the issue or issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors A source was found that establishes Coppinger as a member of both parties, so that resolves the issue that prompted me to bring the discussion here. I still think there would be WP:BLP concerns though about referring to her as a Trotskyite, unless something can be found to support that. As long as the editor who wishes to add that information is prepared to find reliable sources to verify the statement before re-adding it, then I feel the discussion could be closed. If not, then it would be worth seeking an opinion on this matter. This is Paul (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Since the filing party has responded, but the other editors have not responded, this thread will be closed (as apparently having no material disagreement) unless the other editors respond within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 109.246.75.242 on 01:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Pierre Bourdieu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Vladimir Koznyshev (talk · contribs) zzuuzz (talk · contribs) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) Meatsgains (talk · contribs) Coretheapple (talk · contribs) Dispute overview No agreement can be reached about which of two available images of the person who is the subject of the article is the better, more representative and suitable one to serve as the standard. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Editing the image, but it keeps being reverted. Another editor tried to resolve it in the talk page but it has evidently not led to it being resolved as it keeps being reverted. How do you think we can help? Arbitrate between which of the two images is the more suitable one or encourage debate in the talk page so that a consensus might be reached that would resolve it. And in any case get the editor who keeps reverting the image to cease that bullish behavior and be more open to compromise/discussion. This matter appears to be resolved now. One of the images was deleted as the original image it was cropped from had been removed from Wikimedia Commons, leaving its copyright status unverified. This left only one option. I hesitate to delete this outright, but feel free to archive/remove it. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Vladimir Koznyshev Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by zzuuzz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FreeKnowledgeCreator Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Meatsgains Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Coretheapple Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Pierre Bourdieu 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.