Closed. There are several problems with this request. First, as filed, it is incomprehensible. Second, on research, this does not appear to be a dispute about article content. It appears that the filing unregistered editor takes issue with having been asked about conflict of interest. Just comply with the instructions. Either declare the conflict of interest, or state in ordinary English that you do not have a conflict of interest. The inability to file this request in ordinary English does not excuse addressing the conflict of interest question in ordinary English. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2022 (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.
I am a Gold member of Mim Ra Official Studios and have watched the how by paying for it before anyone and it's premiere, hence I make edits accordingly to the actual storyline and mainly backed UP by the main sources from ABC News and VICE. Issue, @BONADEA keeps reverting the actual facts of the show as if she hs watched the show and according to her edits it seems as SHE/HE has not even read there sources and is going by their own accord. WEST TA EAST page and MTV Love School keeps on getting undo and reverted when I have actually done the work and watched entire shows and have only corrected or added missing information. I feel @Bonadea is being biased I don't know on what basis. Maybe I am wrong but the information I write is 100% in accordance to sources if you actually read till end or pay to watch the show.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Maybe explaining to the other party that the information I've written is backed with Facts and in accordance to the sources and I should stop being targeted solely any this user as it feels like bullying and for them to non longer make edits on subjects they do not hold enough information or if they haven't read the News Articles.
Summary of dispute by @Bonadea
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:123.208.65.230 & in the edits summary of West Ta East discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The filing party added a disambiguator to the title of the article, but I have corrected that. However, the discussion on the article talk page has been continuing for less than 24 hours, and the filing party has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page for at least another day. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2022 (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.
This page on a now dead writer and TED talk activist has been edited in a way to suggest that his views have no scientific support, and it seems to me to rewrite the history of the many disputes he had with people who disagreed with his views. The page also seems to emphasize certain aspects of his thinking which was not part of his activism (that he was a leader of the cult Karezza, which does not seem to be a cult and for which no proof of his leadership is provided.) I keep posting citations to articles which offer contrary views to the ones expressed in the page and these keep being removed. The science in this area is emergent, but it seems to me to be biased to one view, and to unnecessarily smear the man. For example a link to a cover story that cites his work at TIME magazine has been removed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I was hoping that a neutral party could arbitrate on what might be a fair portrayal of the man's contribution and role in the so-called "porn wars." At this time, his entry seems to me to be very one-sided, accusing of anti-semitism and cult-leadership. (I do not take a side in the porn wars, just want them to be accurately portrayed, but even my small adjustments quickly get shut down.)
Summary of dispute by Potatochipsegs-zs8-1judo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GAVERushaMiciNGSlANG
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gary Wilson (author and activist) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The discussion has, except for one post, been on a user talk page. Although discussion on a user talk page is useful, it is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, which might be watched by other editors also. Also, if this question is actually about multiple people, then it should be discussed somewhere having more visibility, such as Talk:Columbia University. Resume discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2022 (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.
Snickers2686 and I have disagreed over how to categorize the undergraduate degree-granting institution of a dozen federal judges who received their bachelor's degree from Columbia University. Many of the judges graduated from Columbia College, the main undergraduate liberal arts college of Columbia University, and there are a number of official biographies, New York Times articles, official alumni publications by Columbia, and even resumes indicating that they have graduated from Columbia College. However, Snickers2686 has been reverting the "Columbia College (New York) alumni" category to "Columbia University alumni" category and deleting the relevant entries from the page "List of Columbia College alumni" by insisting that the biographies of the Federal Judicial Center should take precedence over all other articles and calling other sources "incorrect," but I do not see any evidence suggesting that his claim has been an established consensus on Wikipedia. I have pointed this out to Snickers2686 but he has avoided addressing my questions and refused to consider the fact that more accurate sources exist elsewhere about their education qualifications. For example, federal judge Jose A. Cabranes' official biography on his federal court webpage says that he graduated from Columbia College as opposed to Columbia University. It seems that from the editing history of Cabranes' page that Snickers2686 also has the same dispute with another editor named Wallnot. As of June 16, he still has not replied to my questions and comments nor on the discussion I opened on Cabranes' talk page. I do not wish to engage in an edit war as I respect Snickers2686's work, experience, and dedication in creating all those federal judge articles and verifying their information. Therefore, I am raising the issue here, hoping it can be resolved through third-party mediation and hoping Snickers2686 can directly respond to my questions and concerns.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A unbiased opinion on how to categorize the judges' alumni status as either "Columbia College (New York) alumni" or "Columbia University alumni," and whether the JFC biographies should take precedence in federal judge biographies on Wikipedia when it comes to categorizing educational qualifications, even when a preponderance of evidence, including official U.S. government biographies, personal resumes, alumni magazines, news reports, and other 3rd party sources are showing otherwise.
Summary of dispute by Snickers2686
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
CatchedY contends that because the court bio and/or school publication lists Cabranes as graduating from Columbia College and not Columbia University then the category should be Columbia College alumni, yet Cabranes' FJC bio says he graduated from Columbia University, so I contend that it should be Columbia University alumni. A search of FJC's database returns only 19 judges that they say graduated from "Columbia College" and Cabranes is not listed.
José A. Cabranes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Jesse Lee Peterson. There has been discussion on the talk page of the filing editor, but not on the article talk page, which is required prior to other dispute resolution processes. Discussion on the article talk page is required because other editors might also be watching the article talk page and might be able to offer a third opinion. Discuss civilly on the article talk page for at least two days. If discussion there is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2022 (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.
Larry Hockett left a message on your talk page in "June 2022".
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing.
I responded by saying it is not disruptive editing or poorly sourced. It is better sourced than allegation against Jimmy Swaggart with more credible victims. The public deserves to be warned.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not unsourced or poorly sourced content. The link is to a credible documentary by a credible organization. It actually should be on the site to prevent a predator from taking advantage of people which you would see if you watched the documentary. Tedw2 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Not sure. I think the readers should be able to view the link and determine for themselves if the source is credible.
I don't think Larry Hockett has even watched the documentary.
Summary of dispute by Larry Hockett
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There's a pattern emerging in which Tedw2 is edit warring and using an unreliable source to make a contentious allegation about a living person. I'm encouraged by the fact that the user has started to discuss the matter on his user talk page. (I was replying to it when the user filed this.) Once his misconceptions about reliable sources, edit warring and BLP editing are corrected, I'm optimistic that there will be little need for further discussion. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I dispute his characterization of Church Militant as an unreliable source. The documentary (which I don't think Larry Hockett even bothered to watch) has interviews with no less than 5 former members of Rev. Jesse Lee Petersons church who all describe homosexual advances or relationship. Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson's former right hand man (Patrick Rooney) details a 10 year long homosexual relationship with the Reverend. In contrast, Jimmy Lee Swaggart had only one prostitute alleging misconduct. Wikipedia readers should have the right to decide for themselves if the information is the documentary is true. Tedw2 (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Jesse Lee Peterson 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.
Disagreement over whether to include the name of the (at this point) non-notable law firm she works at. Following persistent reinstatement of the disputed material despite BLPUNDEL concerns, a discussion was started on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am willing to try to resolve this dispute in either of two ways. First, if the three editors agree, I will provide a Fourth Opinion. Second, if at least one editor requests an RFC, I will compose and start a Request for Comments. Please read the rules and comply with the rules.
So, will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think are the issues, in particular, what they want changed, or left the same. Also, do you want me to offer a Fourth Opinion, and do you want an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes this should have gone to RFC. I've never seen this forum before and have no idea why it would end up here.12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Vasquez)
I will repeat what I've already laid out at the talk page: I think the name of the law firm Vasquez works for, particularly, should be left out. This is because, without the firm being notable, inclusion of the name would be trivial; including it serves no purpose at this point in time unless one has a vested interest in promoting the law firm. This revision excludes the name while still giving sufficient context. Simply arguing that the name is verifiable does not justify including it because "Wikipedia is not everything".
Looking at the back-and-forth at the talk page, I have no confidence that me and the other two editors will be able to agree, so an RFC might be appropriate. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC) The law firm has now also been added to the infobox, which I would remove accordingly. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Bangabandhu - Did you read Rule 8? Do not reply to the other editors. Reply only to me.
Any editor may make a statement. However, I will be composing an RFC within 24 hours. I will also ask the editors in the RFC not to argue with each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't read Rule 8, but I understand now and will reply only to you. You should know that your RFC is different than the matter in question. At issue here is whether there should be any mention of Brown Rudnick in the entry. The way it was posed to other editors asks whether Brown Rudnick belongs in the lede. It's placement in the lede might be worthy of an RFC, but it's different than what we were discussing. Bangabandhu (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Vasquez)
You need not worry—I am not particularly paying attention to the trial!
I think including a notable person's employer is important to do and it should not be removed unless said person (or someone representing them) request this info be removed. It is only one line, can be removed at a request, and may help a highschooler writing an essay someday (highly improbable, I know). There's my two cents, but take them with a grain of salt. 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble)00:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
There has not been extended discussion on the article talk page- which is a requirement before opening a dispute here. However, I will offer a bit of a WP:3o as I close-Flahistory has a clear WP:COI as the author of a book about the topic- that also means that they are discouraged (but not banned/blocked) from editing this page. They are reminded to read WP:OWN and also- their book is allowable on WP as a source- however, the article is about Dewey, not their book. Any awards won by their book are immaterial to Dewey. Because of the COI- they are reminded to be extremely cautious about the appearance of self promotion. OWNish behavior can and often does lead to restrictions in editing ability, topic bans, and sometimes complete site bans. Thus far- it has been a relatively tame conflict- but it is quickly encroaching on something that will attract administrative attention. When that happens- rarely does the editor with an obvious connection to the topic "win" (not that anyone really wins at the ANI). Nightenbelle (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2022 (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.
another user keeps deleting a paragraph from the article that mentions a biography about Byrd Spilman Dewey and that the book won an award. The same user changed a heading incorrectly as well.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried to contact the person via messaging but they did not reply. They merely made the same edits again. They offer no explanation as to why the edits were made.
17 June 2022
curprev 22:09, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,799 bytes +413 Undid revision 1093624659 by Curiositykeeper (talk) This will go to dispute resolution and be reported as vandalism. undo Tag: Undo
curprev 22:08, 17 June 2022 Flahistory talk contribs 20,386 bytes 0 Undid revision 1093624706 by Curios
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The user making the edits needs to supply the evidence that the information is incorrect.
In my outsider opinion, the matter is not whether the information deleted by Curiositykeeper is correct or not, but whether it is germane to the article. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Curiositykeeper
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I removed the sentence "That the book served as an autobiography was confirmed in the 2012 biography of the Deweys, Pioneering Palm Beach: The Deweys and the South Florida Frontier, where the authors were able to match land records and events to the book's storyline. The Historical Society of Palm Beach County awarded the book the Fannie James Award for Pioneer Research Achievement" from the page on Dewey because it is not germane to a biography of Byrd Dewey. It is a promotion for the book that Flahistory wrote. These statements are not in the citations, but in the text and are solely promotional and do not add to our understanding of Dewey. There are also errors on the page concerning whether creating a plat of a section of town constitutes "founding." The town of Boynton was referred to as "Boynton" for several years before the Deweys platted the town. It had a train station, a post office, farms, and was included in the federal census as "Boynton" before the Deweys platted their property in preparation for sale. (a plat is a map, drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including streets, blocks, and lots) It's not that I don't think that Byrd should not be celebrated, but aggrandizing her is mainly to promote her book. Flahistory has figured out who I am and has attempted to contact me several ways including social media. I would have been happy to continue discussion on the Talk page, but am starting to feel harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiositykeeper (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Byrd Spilman Dewey discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Also, the discussion at the article talk page has not always been civil. Please provide proper notice, and try to discuss the article content issue politely and see whether that helps. I am neither closing nor opening this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2022 (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.
Closed as pending in another forum. The filing editor also filed a complaint at WP:ANI about this dispute. The ANI dispute is still open, and we will not consider a content dispute while it is also pending in a conduct forum. Maybe this is a better forum, but if so, the ANI dispute must first be closed by an uninvolved administrator, to be sure that there are no incoming boomerangs. If there is still a content dispute after the ANI case is closed, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2022 (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.
Uninvolved editors (preferably with some knowledge) input can help establish a wider consensus on what is more historically accurate.
Summary of dispute by Magherbin
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tewodros I discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. This is a dispute about an Alternative to Deletion and should be resolved by a deletion discussion. The issue is edit-warring over a Blank and Redirect, cutting an article down to a redirect. The consensus process for resolving such a dispute is to nominate the article for deletion and propose Redirect as an alternative. Keep and Delete can of course also be proposed. There is no need for a voluntary discussion process when a binding consensus process, AFD, is appropriate. Either nominate the article for deletion, or don't nominate the article for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2022 (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.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Asian Australians in politics discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note Notification needed on the participating editor's talk page. Also- More editors have been involved with this discussion on the various talk pages - all of them should be included here. Finally- we require extended discussion attempts on the article talk page before coming here- it does not appear those have happened. If they have- please show where. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2022 (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.
Closed as abandoned by filing editor. The filing editor has not made a statement in two days after a volunteer asked whether there was interest in moderated discussion. It isn't clear why the filing editor made this request in the first place. They wasted their time and that of the volunteers. If there is a new article content dispute, discuss it on the article talk page with regard to what you want changed in the article, rather than with vague complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2022 (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.
The page includes no conspiracies related to anti-feminism, lgbtq issues, or fandom/celebrity conspiracies despite them being well-documented elsewhere on the site. This is a clear gender bias on the page that prioritizes conspiracies created by and for cishet men and erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities. Via his own profile page, user Slatersteven who reversed even preliminary edits of this issue seems to not be informed of or interested in learning about these conspiracies before deleting all edits made to the page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Page needs to be investigated to determine whether the assessment of gender bias on the page is accurate.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
And only one was added, relativity (if not totally) minor one Larries. We can't have every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, so we need to choose only major and/or long-lasting ones. Also the users wp:rightgreatwrongs attitude is an issue.
Nor is there an attempt to "erases gender/sexuality marginalization as well as communities formed by women & gender/sexual minorities", hell I have even said that Gay agenda may well be valid for inclusion. Also at least one of the "conspiracy theories" they wanted to add is not one. It is just a group that believes in a specific conspiracy theory (and so that is the one that should be added). Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I added larries first merely to test the waters about additions to the page, and because I am very familiar with the community. It IS major and long-lasting - the Larry conspiracy theory has been ongoing for 12 years. H-influenzae (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have experience on Wikipedia editing as a queer person - I did not want to spend hours arguing about anti-gay conspiracy theories needing admission when testing the waters to see if anything related to queer spaces could be added did just fine to figure out that people sit on the page and don't like additions. H-influenzae (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
But are you editing in good faith? It seems I am only asked to assume good faith when someone is completely dismissing what I have to say because they feel they own the page, which is supposedly antithetical to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. H-influenzae (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It's true that Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs; however, the page including both the conspiracy of white genocide and New Coke suggests it is a place to discuss conspiracies both of the social justice and "trivial" variety, and there is very clearly an imbalance about the types of conspiracies that you believe should be allowed on the page. I do not think the list of conspiracies on the page should be infinite, but reverting the addition of something you feel is too trivial before you even researched it suggests a feeling of ownership over the page which is also not acceptable for an open source website for sharing information. H-influenzae (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note First- all participants are reminded to not discuss the dispute before a volunteer opens this page. Unfortunately, due to personal issues, I cannot commit to mediating at this time (I will be without internet from tomorrow for 5 days). Next- there are a lot of behavior issue accusations being tossed around- these are not to be handled on this board. Before a volunteer agrees to take the case- all involved users must agree that these issues are not really the problem and it is indeed a content issue. If all involved editors agree to this, a mediator will begin the process as soon as possible. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have no personal issues with Slatersteven outside of him being the person who reverted my edits. This IS purely a content issue - the page contains no conspiracies about the topics I mentioned while at the same time containing many conspiracies that are less serious or that people have never even heard of. Slatersteven did not even allow me to make substantial edits, or research the edits I did make, before reverting them and telling me they were irrelevant. He clearly lacks the expertise on these issues to dismiss them so quickly.H-influenzae (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note – First, the filing editor says that the page needs to be investigated to determine whether the assessment of gender bias on the page is accurate. If I agree to mediate this dispute, I have no intention of investigating a claim of gender bias, only of discussing whether to add certain other conspiracy theories to the page. If the filing editor wants a more general investigation, they will have to go somewhere else. Second, the filing editor is making various statements about Slatersteven, such as that they lack the expertise to dismiss certain issues. A rule of this noticeboard is to comment on content, not contributors, and to discuss edits, not editors. If I agree to mediate this dispute, the filing editor will have to focus on topics that should or should not be included, not on who does or doesn't want them. Third, will the filing editor list specific conspiracy theories that they want added to the page?
I will try to mediate this dispute, but only if the editors agree to accept my moderation with my ground rules. Please read the rules. I will ask you to read them again, so I am only asking you to read them once at this time. We will only discuss the content of the article, not other editors, and we will only discuss specific changes to the article. We will not discuss whether the article is biased, unless you wish to correct a bias by adding or subtracting something. Do the editors agree to a moderated discussion of specific article content? Please reply below with a yes or no. You may optionally state what you want to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors on conspiracies
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are three concerns about this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Second, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on a user's talk page, which is useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, where other editors might also take part in the discussion. Third, the filing editor says that they are requesting a third opinion. A third opinion can be requested either here or at the Third Opinion noticeboard, but this noticeboard is used primarily to request moderated discussion. Discussion should resume at the article talk page, Talk:Agriculture in Singapore. If discussion at the article talk page continues and is inconclusive, a new request can be filed either at this noticeboard or at the Third Opinion noticeboard. If a request is made for a Third Opinion (either here or at the Third Opinion noticeboard) and an opinion is provided, the opinion will not be binding, but the volunteer will not engage in subsequent discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2022 (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.
My edit about the first cultured meat product on the market was reverted by Singaporeano, who thinks it was "blatant advertising". On their talk page I gave my reasons for disagreeing w/ such an assessment, but Singaporeano still insists on their initial assessment.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Agriculture in Singapore 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a dispute regarding how the information in the "history" section is organized, with two competing versions of the section. One version has been argued for on the talk page, and these arguments have gone unchallenged for over half a year. The other version is not being defended by anyone, but user "MrOllie" keeps reverting the section to that version anyway with no reason or explanation and has ignored multiple requests to discuss the issue on the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Revert to my most recent edit, lock the article, and tell MrOllie to take the dispute to the talk page like a big boy instead of my personal page.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First-person shooter discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are multiple problems with this filing. First, the filing editor doesn't correctly state what the focus of the dispute is, and provides a useless article link, which is insulting to the community and implies that the filing party isn't trying to work collectively. Second, this appears to be a dispute about the declining of a draft. This noticeboard is for disputes about article content, not whether a draft should become an article. The filing editor is advised to request the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. Third, I have read Draft:Leadership-as-Practice, and, if I were reviewing it, I would ask whether the submitter has a conflict of interest, because the draft reads like training material for a workshop. Fourth, register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (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.
I am bringing this matter to volunteer(s) to help with a dispute that I have especially with reviewer, Theroadislong, as well as with Rusalkii, who insist that my Draft: Leadership-as-Practice reads as an essay when I believe it certainly does not. Unfortunately, it appears that this criticism has taken on a life of its own and I fear that these reviewers are not seemingly able to bend from their impressions, guided by the history of the reviews of this prospective important contribution to the subject of leadership. I have had other entries fully and firstly accepted in wikipedia and wikisummaries and I believe my draft is encyclopedic and ready for publication in wikipedia. Minimally, I request an impartial review by someone willing to read the draft without being guided by an impression or prior history or stereotype implanted by these reviewers. Thank you. Joe Raelin
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have appealed to these reviewers to give this draft a fair read without prior bias, but they have seemingly shown unwillingness to do so.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
To either review the draft without bias or to find someone who could do so.
Summary of dispute by Theroadislong
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Rusalkii
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
USA discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. The filing editor has neither listed the other editors nor notified them of this filing. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page for another 24 hours. All of the editors are advised to be civil and concise in discussion. If discussion resumes and is inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, listing and notifying the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2022 (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.
In the article Medieval Technology, I noticed that Leonardo da Vinci was referred to simply as da Vinci. I corrected it to the full name, but editor Ravenswing has kept undoing the change. I noted in the Talk section that it's a long-established practice in scholarly writing to refer to him either as Leonardo or by his full name, and that da Vinci isn't a surname, nor has it ever been accepted as the equivalent of Leonardo or his full name in formal writing. They replied that that using da Vinci to refer to Leonardo has been an established practice "for centuries." When I asked for some evidence, they gave a list of place names and geographical features, all whose names have their origins in the late 20th century. I pointed out that it was irrelevant to the discussion on the proper form of Leonardo's name in formal writing. They also pleaded common use, though I'm certain that common use doesn't trump Wikipedia's policy of favoring an academic style and formal register for its articles. Unfortunately, there's not enough space to list sources, but I can provide links to Britannica Online, Oxford Art Online, the Met (NYC), the National Gallery (UK and US), and the Chicago Manual, among others, to support my argument. In fact I've been unable to find a single authoritative source that gives the name as da Vinci or that places him under D or even V. I'm frankly very puzzled by Ravenswing's adamant rejection of a perfectly valid edit. If they have anything to support their rejection of the edit, let them present it and make their case. If not, then let the edit stand. I think it clearly improves the quality of the article by bringing a snippet of its language into line with the prevailing academic practice. Thank you for your time.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I'd simply like for the edit to stand, as it is a valid, uncontroversial edit. Beyond naming conventions, a proper name should be given in full in its first appearance in an article, and it would also make the name congruent with the other full names given in the same paragraph. If no resolution can be achieved, at least I'll have had my say and had my argument validated.
Medieval Technology 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Extensive discussion requires back-and-forth, which hasn't happened here with only one comment from one of the editors. If discussion stalls after extensive discussion, this case may be refiled. If an editor won't discuss, or stops discussing, see WP:DISCFAIL, but there's no sign of that here since what discussion there has been has only happened today. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (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.
I added 177 as the sum of the three prime factors (41, 59, 71) whose product make the minimum faithful complex representation of the Monster group. This is not trivial, it is another set value of these digits. I.e. the group 2.B has a faithful representation under 96,256 dimensions, whose sum of digits is 196,560, the kissing number in 24 dimensions. Aliquot sums and sums of divisors are common properties of numbers, and 196,883 is a particularly important number within the monstrous moonshine as it is linked with the j-invariant under its 196,884 dimensional representation - if this is too OR then I am perfectly fine with not including it. It seems to me that David Eppstein just wants to remove "cruft" he doesn't like because, well, personally he doesn't like it. He removed plenty of other information like examples of .177 guns. It makes very little sense. People who come here and read these pages are often times not mathematicians, so yes, including information of numbers being odd, composite, and even semiprime, are important tidbits of information that inform people not well acquainted with mathematics.
These values are not unimportant. They define some of the characteristics of the number 177. To take out these properties leaves this number less notable. I am seeking mediation, as I have needed to continue reverting misguided edits by David Eppstein. He alone is not one to choose what goes on a page, or not; and neither am I. So if we can get proper input that would be great. Radlrb (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I removed two of the properties he removed, and still did permit the inclusion of three properties that are notable (as a Blum integer and 60-gonal number).
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Find a middle ground, I removed some and he should accept some. Thank you.
Summary of dispute by David Eppstein
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
177 (number) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as failed. It has come to the attention of the moderator that one of the editors has opened a sockpuppet investigation involving another editor. This is being treated as a decision not to continue with moderated discussion and to pursue a conduct path instead. After the sockpuppet investigation is concluded, discussion should be resumed on the article talk page, and any survivors can file a new request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2022 (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.
The article on Lavender oil as I found it claimed there was no evidence that Lavender oil could treat anxiety or insomnia. The citation for this was a "drugs.com" article that didn't actually make any such claim, so I edited the article to reflect "drugs.com"'s actual content.
However I then noticed that the "drugs.com" article only cited very old articles, the newest of which was from 2018. So I added the findings of a 2019 meta-analysis to the Wikipedia article. This was then immediately removed as an "unreliable source" despite being from the 7th most cited journal in the world.
Attempts to engage in conversation with the user who reverted the changes was simply met with more unexplained requests for a "better source" and also conceding that the current "drugs.com" citation is not a good source for the claims being defended either.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide guidance on if any of the multiple peer-reviewed research articles I mentioned on lavender oil (and others that exist), as well as the "drugs.com" article should be included in the Wikipedia article.
Help decide which sources discussed thus far should be considered appropriate for this article.
Possible help in finding a new source if none of the existing ones are up to standard.
Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zefr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Although a meta-analysis, the 2019 source suggested by the IP editor covers weak primary research in 5 studies, 4 of which were by the same German author in journals of dubious quality. A review of weak research is still a weak source for the encyclopedia. The original edit by the IP was far too detailed and overstated from such a weak review. The previous version concerning the use of oral lavender oil for anxiety was There is no good evidence to support the use of lavender oil for treating dementia or anxiety, which is true and supported by the Drugs.com review (updated in Oct 2021), which stated concerns about the research on oral Silexan for anxiety: the presence of significant heterogeneity, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, and small number of studies (4 of which were by the same author) limit extrapolation of the results. Overall, the 2019 review by Yap et al. is unconvincing as a source, and leaves us with the conclusion there is no good evidence for using oral lavender oil to treat anxiety. Further, there is no WP:MEDSCI source to indicate any clinical organization recommends such treatment. Zefr (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello Zefr, as you have thus far not posted on the Talk page and only have reverted my changes or posted here, I will copy-paste my response from the Talk page to be here but feel free to reply on the talk page:
It is not an encyclopedia's job to do a peer-review of research. If you don't think the conclusion of these papers are correct because of bad methodology then you should reach out to the journal itself to see if you can have it removed.
In any case, at least the methodology and findings are clear and the publishers' names are known for these papers. The "conclusion" of the drugs.com article is simply anonymous and not peer reviewed, and many many papers are missing from their page in the first place (most papers on their page are older than 5 years too).
Perhaps a middle-ground: find all relevant papers published in the last 5 years on the topic, no matter what their findings are, and write up a summary of what was found. Example, "Some studies show effectiveness[1][2], while others do not[3][4][5]" or "There is some evidence of effectives[1][2][3]", etc etc whatever we find gets summarized. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Lavender oil 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, but it has only been conducted for a few hours. The discussion should continue for at least 24 hours. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, a volunteer can open a case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply! Discussion between Alex and I have somewhat continued now that a new user User:PaleoNeonate has entered the discussion to again simply claim that the source is bad without much justification. This time though, Alex has acknowledged that there are multiple sources pointing to the same conclusion like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33638614/50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that I was added here but I don't intend to spend much time on this. The discussion at the talk page is likely enough. Moreover, it seems to be an WP:1AM issue and it's perennial essential oils claims... Conflicting studies means no reliable evidence. —PaleoNeonate – 09:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no recent conflicting studies, that was just an edit I made to better reflect the contents of the original (bad) source, "drugs.com". Every meta-analysis that I can find in the last 5 years all point to the same conclusion: lavender oil capsules taken orally is effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in people with anxiety disorders. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Also sorry if I wasn't supposed to add you to this. I saw you comment on the Talk Page so I figured you became part of the "Users involved". Feel free to remove yourself if that's not how DRN is supposed to work. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if here or "request for comment" is a better place for this now as Alexbrn and I have somewhat reached a consensus on a good meta-analysis source, but Zefr has now finally joined the Talk Page and has brought up one of the original issues/questions that I mentioned in this DRN entry. "Provide guidance on if any of the multiple peer-reviewed research articles I mentioned on lavender oil (and others that exist), as well as the "drugs.com" article should be included in the Wikipedia article. Help decide which sources discussed thus far should be considered appropriate for this article."
Basically, he insists that the not peer-reviewed, anonymously authored article on "drugs.com" is in-fact superior to the multiple meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. My best effort of understanding this comes down to the MEDRS article, which includes this image:
From my understanding, the new sources would be considered "2nd best" and "drugs.com" would be considered "2nd worst". I feel it has no place on this article, and all instances of it being used for medical claims should be replaced by secondary sources from reputable peer-reviewed journals.
Note his claim of "Not a reputable clinical publication" is contradictory to Alexbrn's position on the journal: "Phytomedicine seems a reasonable, relevant journal (impact factor ~5)", as Zefr continues to push for "drugs.com" as the only good source.
From what I can tell, both of these users are long-time editors that know much more about Wikipedia policy than I do, so I'm curious how they reached such different conclusions and how we should go forward from here. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Until yesterday I actually didn't know Wikipedia had higher standards for medical sources than for other types of content. And I totally understand why and I think it's really cool that the community considers things like the safety of the readers. However, this just seems overly aggressive against me in the face of content of the peer-reviewed meta-analyses I'm trying to add to the Wikipedia article in favor of "drugs.com" ... Sorry if this is veering into too much focus on a user vs the content, but I feel like this is part of why we need more eyes looking at like user User:Pyrrho_the_Skipper who recently joined the discussion to support the addition I made. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator on lavender oil
Slow down. I will act as the moderator. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and to the community. These ground rules will be in effect. Read the rules a second time. If you have questions, ask them rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often only make the poster feel better but do not communicate effectively. Now, it appears that there are two intertwined sets of issues, about article content, and about the reliability of sources. This noticeboard discusses article content. If there is an issue about the reliability of a source, we can put the content discussion on hold while we ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about source reliability. It also appears that the issue has to do with a statement about whether lavender oil (or its aroma) can be useful in relieving anxiety. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Each editor may post three paragraphs. The first paragraph should state what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. This is about article content. The second paragraph should state any questions about the reliability of sources. The third paragraph should ask any other questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors on lavender oil
[Moved to here by moderator]
Thank you Robert!
As I am primarily a consumer of Wikipedia and not an editor, I will selfishly ask that we put the content discussion on hold while we ask the RSN about the source reliability of drugs.com, as this has much more widespread implications for the safety of readers. Upon inspecting Zefr's and Alexbrn's account they seem like a long-time Wikipedia editors that should know a lot about policy, as well as just being pretty smart/credentialed in general. Yet I am greatly concerned by Zefr's assessment of what "drugs.com" is, its trustworthness, and (most importantly) its alleged widespread use as MEDRS.
In regards to entry 4, "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.", it seems Zefr has went ahead and edited the article at 20:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC) as well as continued discussion in the talk page (entry 8 of ground rules page you linked) ... should this change be reverted to its status from before moderated discussion began?
If an editor requests an inquiry into the reliability of a source, I am now also asking that they state what article content it may affect. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. The sources provide information for the article and other articles.
It is true that the rules say not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discussion on the article talk page is permitted, and may be taken into account or may be ignored, so do not assume that a comment on the article talk page is being read, and do not assume that it is not being read. I do not plan to try to roll back any edits that were made to the article.
It appears that one editor is challenging the reliability of drugs.com because they say that it is controlled by Big Pharma. If that is not the issue, please state what the issue is.
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.
Bengali Kayastha
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is regarding the addition of the Bengali Karana connection as described in the two most essential scriptures (that enlisted castes, local to Bengal) in the Bengali Kayastha article. According to most sources, there was an unavoidable connection between these two. Some schools of thought regard these two as identical and claim 'Kayastha' is a remolded appellation of 'Karana,' Some other schools of thought claim that Karana merged themselves into the Kayastha. But these all scholars accepted that in epigraphic evidence as well as in the earliest scriptures of Bengal which enlisted these caste groups had taken both synonymously. Currently, the complete information is missing in the Bengali Kayastha article.
Sources:- I prepared a Draft version regarding the origin of the community. Reliable sources are already cited there. However here I am providing some other reliable sources 1. quote- "Whatever the case in early times, in Bengal up to about the ninth or tenth century Karana and Kayastha were considered to be synonymous. In Bengal, the Karanas gradually became subsumed under the name Kāyastha, although
we have noted that in the Bengali inscriptions of about the Gupta and post-Gupta era the word Käyastha was used as frequently as
the word Karana. Generally, it can be said without doubt that in the inscriptions of this period Käyastha is not a word denoting any caste
or sub-caste, but one signifying a profession; the Kāyasthas had not developed in this period into the caste or sub-caste which they
comprise today." Ray, Niharranjan, History of the Bengali People, p. 175.
2. quote- "Figuring repeatedly in copper plates of Bengal from the 5th century CE onwards, the Kayastha emerged to immense prominence in the early medieval Bengal society. The Kayastha, often synonymous with the term Karana in Bengal inscriptions, is known since the early historical times as the scribe or the clerk."- Furui, Ryosuke (2018). "Social Life: Issues of Varṇa-Jāti System". In Chowdhury, Abdul Momin; Chakravarti, Ranabir (eds.). History of Bangladesh: Early Bengal in Regional Perspectives (up to c. 1200 CE). Vol. 2: Society, Economy & Culture. Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. p. 62. However, He is silent about the Kayastha-Karana connection. Apart from these reliable sources are cited in the draft version. Quotes if needed would be provided here. Sanyal, Sharma, and Ralph W. Nicholas have taken Karana and Kayastha identical. Majumdar claims Karana merged themselves with Kayastha, however, he accepted that in epigraphic evidence and literary sources both are synonymous.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The missing information is essential and should be included in the article. One of the experienced and neutral editors LukeEmily, a specialist in editing Indian caste-related articles has fixed goals in To do list section to improve the article. The Karana-Kayastha connection is also present in this. However, Ekdalian is opposing (at least a section) it by providing a previous consensus. The dispute should be resolved as early as possible by providing a reasonable solution to this. thanks.
Summary of dispute by Ekdalian
As I have mentioned several times on the relevant talk page, we have a separate article on Karan Kayasthas/Karan (caste), and we need to incorporate relevant information about the Karans/Karanas of Bengal under a separate section there. IMHO, we need to do is divide the article on Karan caste into regions like Bengal, Odisha, etc, and mention the relevant details there under Bengal. Since we have a separate article on the Karan caste, we should add relevant details there itself as per convention. Further, Karans and Kayasthas are mostly considered as distinct castes, though may be somewhat related, which may again be a subject of debate, as per speculations based on reliable sources! Can you please provide the sources Satnam2408, like LukeEmily mentioned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by LukeEmily
I dont know much about these communities but will suggest that we follow the geneeral rule.If reliable sources show any relation between the two communities it could be mentioned IMHO unless it is a fringe opinion that modern scholars dispute. This is a little confusing and needs someone who has more context to understand the academic consensus. EkDalian, can the connection be mentioned on both pages (Karan Kayastha and Bengali Kayastha)? Was Karana a caste or profession? What is the difference between Karan Kayastha of Bengal and Bengali Kayasthas? Also, please can you check "National Integration in Historical Perspective:By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty , page 121-124? Thanks,LukeEmily (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Chanchaldm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bengali Kayastha discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator, Kayastha
Three of the four editors have responded. Discussion can be conducted with two or more editors. I will act as moderator. Please read the usual rules. Then read the rules, again. If there are any questions about the rules, please ask them now rather than guessing. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not communicate as well as shorter statements. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and the community. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, so we will try to define exactly what the content issues are. If there are questions about the reliability of sources, they can be stated, and then asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.
I will ask each editor to state, in one or two paragraphs, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. Also, separately, state any questions about the reliability of sources. After we have identified the article content issues and source reliability issues, we will decide how to proceed further. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors, Kayastha
Statement by Satnam2408:-
As I mentioned earlier, I want to add the information regarding the Karan and Kayastha connection in the relevant section of the Bengali Kayastha article. I want to bring the attention of the Moderator to this Draft. I want to incorporate the specific section starting from the line:- In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayasthas had evolved into a caste over the preceding centuries [.....] And ending by the line [....] Ralph W. Nicholas associates Kayasthas with Karanas, claiming that 'Kayastha' is a remoulded appellation of 'Karana,' as recorded in the Brihaddharm Purana. The section is highlighted. The section has demonstrated all relevant Theories as propounded by different scholars. The sources and corresponding page numbers are already given there. Thanks.
Proposed paragraph:-
In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayasthas had evolved into a caste over the preceding centuries. The Brihaddharma-Purana, a 13th-century Sanskrit text, contains the earliest comprehensive chronicle of the constitution and structure of the cast system of Bengal.[5] The Brahma Vaivarta Purana, significant for a relatively late Bengali recension (c. 14/15th century), gives a caste structure but differs from the Brihaddharma-Purana on caste description. Traditionally, the Hindu society of Bengal was divided into two categories: Brahmin and Shudra.[5][10] The Brihad-dharma and Brahma-vaivarta Puranas explicitly note a caste group called Karana of mixed descent, from Vaishya father and Shudra mother, classified under the Sat-Shudra/ Uttam-Sankar-Sudra category.[11][12][13] Vaijayanti (11th century A.D.), a lexicographer, appears to consider Kayastha and Karana to be synonymous and depicts them as scribes. This reference is consistent with the Brihaddharma-Purana, and epigraphic evidence proves the identification of Karana and Kayastha.[14] According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name; the Karana was the prevalent caste name when these Puranas were composed.[5] According to Sanyal, the Kayasthas are indistinguishable from the Karanas and were classed alongside some trading and artisan castes in the Brihaddharma Purana.[12] Majumdar observes that, After the conclusion of the Hindu period, the Karana caste, whose members performed the same vocations as the Kayasthas, steadily dissipated from Bengal. The Kayastha caste became prominent from this period. According to these observations, Majumdar concludes that Karana merged themselves into the Kayastha, and these two castes were ultimately fused in Bengal as in other parts of India.[14] Ralph W. Nicholas associates Kayasthas with Karanas, claiming that 'Kayastha' is a remoulded appellation of 'Karana,' as recorded in the Brihaddharm Purana.[11]. Satnam2408 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian:-Satnam2408, you are digressing from the discussion. This DRN discussion is all about the Kayastha-Karana connection in Bengal. We had separate detailed (article) talk page discussions regarding your draft version as well as why the medieval literature (Brahma Vaivarta Purana and Brihaddharma Purana) are not relevant enough to be incorporated in the article. LukeEmily has also clearly stated that this has been opposed by Sitush & Ekdalian. We are not supposed to discuss it here and waste the time and energy of the moderator. Coming to the point, regarding the Kayastha-Karana connection, we may include relevant statements from modern sources like the one LukeEmily has mentioned above (instead of quoting from the primary sources like the Puranas, without any interpretation by modern scholars; including them in the article on Baidya, as per consensus, has different reasons altogether, explained earlier)! And yes, we may mention relevant statements from such modern sources like "National Integration in Historical Perspective: By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty, (pages 121-124)" in both the articles. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Kayastha)
I will repeat my instructions. Each editor is requested to state what they want changed in the article if they want changes made to the article, and to identify any sources about which there are issues about reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
One editor has called our attention to a draft. Is it a draft to replace the existing article, or of a proposed new article? If it is of a proposed new article, it can be submitted to Articles for Creation for review. Also, they have requested that a paragraph of the draft be reviewed. Is that paragraph intended to be added to the article, or to replace a different paragraph in the article? The tone of the draft and the paragraph are not encyclopedic, and are more suited to a textbook or a lecture than an encyclopedia, but that is not important unless we know where the text is to go anyway.
Another editor is addressing the first editor, and is referring to a third editor. Address your comments to the moderator, not to each other. Comment on content, not contributors.
Each editor is asked to state what they want changed in the article. It appears that the issues are not about source reliability but about article content, and this noticeboard is a place to discuss article content. If you want to add to the article, change the article, or subtract from the article, say where in the article.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Kayastha)
Statement by Satnam2408:- Hey moderator, I am extremely sorry for not getting your point. The draft was prepared to include an origin section in the article, but it was contested. I want to include only my proposed paragraph in the History section of the Bengali Kayastha article, immediately after the line "Sekhar Bandyopadhyay also places their emergence as a caste after the Gupta period." The proposed paragraph has demonstrated the relevant information regarding the Karan and Kayastha connection. Let me give you a summarized idea about exactly what I want to include and the relevance of that. The detailed caste description that persists in Bengal was given in two early scriptures. Bengali Kayastha as a caste name was not present in these Scriptures. There were 36 castes (enlisted in these Scriptures ) in Bengal, and Karana was one of them. According to most scholars, this Karana caste and Kayastha caste (that persist in modern Bengal at present) have connections. Some scholars claimed that both are synonymous in the Brihaddharma Purana. My proposed paragraph has just intended to establish that fact. However, it can be modified to suit the encyclopedia. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC).
Statement by Ekdalian:-
Hello Robert McClenon; yes, this is purely a content issue. I am opposing the above para proposed by Satnam2408 for the following reasons: a) The draft version is self contradictory e.g. it starts with, "In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayasthas had evolved into a caste over the preceding centuries", and later says, "According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name; the Karana was the prevalent caste name when these Puranas were composed." b) Such ambiguities exist since these two Puranas (which Satnam has mentioned) are not WP:RS, rather these are primary sources, which is also applicable for the quotations from the same without any actual interpretation by modern scholars/historians. c) If you have a look at the article on Bengali Kayastha, several reliable authors like André Wink, Tej Ram Sharma and Sekhar Bandyopadhyay place their emergence as a caste after the Gupta period (c. 320 to 550 CE), which contradicts the statement by Jyotirmoyee Sarma above that, "perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name" when these Puranas were composed much later, one in the 13th and the other during the 14th/15th century. Therefore, the above statement by Jyotirmoyee Sarma may be considered as WP:FRINGE.
I have no objection to other reliably sourced statements like "Majumdar observes that, After the conclusion of the Hindu period, the Karana caste, whose members performed the same vocations as the Kayasthas, steadily dissipated from Bengal. The Kayastha caste became prominent from this period. According to these observations, Majumdar concludes that Karana merged themselves into the Kayastha, and these two castes were ultimately fused in Bengal as in other parts of India." IMHO, I believe that we can also add relevant statements from the comparatively modern source mentioned by LikeEmily, "National Integration in Historical Perspective: By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty, (pages 121-124)". Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
In order to provide you more details about these Bengali castes and the caste names, the term 'Karana' in Bengali language means clerk. The Karanas later fused with the more popular Bengali Kayastha caste, a caste comprising administrators, ministers, scribes and record keepers, which also absorbed the descendants of the ruling dynasties of Bengal (as per reliable sources). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement by LukeEmily:-
Hello Robert McClenon, sorry for not responding earlier. I suggested the WP:DRN to both the editors because I do not have enough context about these communities(karana, kayastha or castes of Bengal) to help resolve their dispute. My general request is that we add whatever is sourced, reliable and modern, presenting all sides. I did a quick search using the keywords, and came across National Integration in Historical Perspective: By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty. At this time, I am only following their conversation and will add quotes from the sources I found. I request the editors to put all quotes in one place on the Bengali Kayastha Talk page so it will be easier for new editors joining the DRN to reference them.LukeEmily (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator (Kayastha)
Please answer the following specific questions. Is there any disagreement about anything except the addition of a paragraph? Is the issue with the detailed wording of the paragraph, or with the overall content of the paragraph? I think that the proposed paragraph needs improvement, if it is to be included. So we need to decide whether subsequent discussion will be about the details of the paragraph or about the existence of the paragraph. If it is the former, we will try to improve and compromise on the paragraph. If it is the latter, the proponent will make minor changes to it, and then there will be an RFC. So answer the questions, concisely. Overly long explanations do not explain well.
I have provided a section for back-and-forth discussion between the editors. Be civil. It is not necessary to be concise in the back-and-forth discussion, because the community and I will ignore it.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Third Statements by Editors (Kayastha)
Fourth Statement by Moderator (Kayastha)
We are not discussing modification of the proposed paragraph, because we are discussing whether it should be added in the first place. Ekdalian disagrees with addition of the paragraph. Their reasons for disagreeing appear to be that it is based on ancient primary sources, and that it is inconsistent as to centuries. So I will ask Satnam2408 how they address those criticisms, and will ask Ekdalian whether they have any further criticisms. The lack of modern secondary sources does seem to be a policy reason, and the inconsistency as to centuries seems to be problematic. Does LukeEmily have any content issues, that is, changes to the article, to discuss? Are there any other issues about specific changes to the article? Are there any other issues that are not about specific changes to the article (and may or may not be in order here)? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Fourth Statements by Editors (Kayastha)
Fifth Statement by Moderator (Kayastha)
We are not making progress because the editors are addressing each other rather than me. Stop the back-and-forth discussion.
The disagreement appears to be that Satnam2408 wishes to add a paragraph, and Ekdalian does not wish to add the paragraph. It appears both to me and to Ekdalian that the paragraph is inconsistent as to centuries, and that it uses ancient primary sources. Can Satnam2408 address those concerns? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Satnam2408:- Hey Robert McClenon the paragraph is written after being inspired by the article Baidya. This is another caste of Bengal and related much with Bengali Kayastha. However, if it is infringing the WP policy I would not use them. But the decision of DRN in this regard would have an impact on other caste articles of Bengal in which paragraphs are solely/mainly based on these scriptures/Puranas. Further, to resolve the issue I have already stated that Jyotirmoyee Sarma can be scrapped to which the editor has an objection. Ekdalian is not opposing the complete paragraph. He is opposing the statements from the Puranas without proper interpretation. Please see his last statement. He has no objection to other reliably sourced statements and is agreeing to the discussion. I would prepare a summarized draft here that suits the encyclopedia and would contain only factual information and pure interpretations. Thanks, Satnam2408 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposed paragraph after modification
In the eleventh century, Bengal was in the grip of Brahmanism. The Kayastha had evolved into a caste from a professional group in the 10th-11th centuries. In ancient scripts and inscriptions, there is mention of a class of regal officials referred to as writers or accountants, Karana or Kayastha. Lexicographer Vaijayanti (11th century A.D.) appears to consider Kayastha and Karana as being synonymous and depicts them as scribes. In two early scriptures of Bengal, mention was made of a caste group called Karana.
Some schools of thinking consider Karana and Kayastha castes to be identical or equivalent. According to other schools of thought, the Karana and the Kayastha castes eventually blended in Bengal and other parts of India.
I have incorporated pure factual historical information. I have scrapped trenchant labelling and only included the part for which interpretation is available.
I have an issue with the statement of wink regarding the crystallization of the Kayastha caste group, I would like to discuss this on the talk page. I believe it is misinterpreted as wink has not mentioned Kayastha as a caste group in the 5th or 6th century AD. Thanks. Satnam2408 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian:- Hello Robert McClenon, I would like to thank you for your involvement in the resolution of this dispute. I am okay with the above mentioned paragraph by Satnam2408; we can incorporate the same after improving the language, fixing typos & all. Satnam2408 may add the same in the article (and we can improve the language)!
I would like to add that neither the article states nor anyone has ever claimed that Wink states that the Bengali Kayasthas crystallized into a caste in the 5th/6th century; rather I believe everyone is on the same page that they crystallized into a caste (from a professional group) during the 10th/11th century. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Kayastha)
Has there been agreement between the two editors that a shortened paragraph can be added to the article? If not, what is the disagreement about? If so, can this dispute be closed as resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Kayastha)
Statement by Ekdalian:- Yes, Robert McClenon; we have agreed to add a shortened paragraph based on reliable sources. I believe, you can close this dispute as resolved once confirmed by Satnam2408 as well. Thanks, again! Ekdalian (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Statement by Satnam2408:- First of all, I would thank you for your efforts to resolve this dispute. Yes Robert McClenon we have achieved a consensus regarding this issue. The current case can be closed. Have a great day. Thanks. Regards Satnam2408 (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC).
Back-and-Forth Discussion
Statement by Ekdalian:- As mentioned above, I oppose the addition of the paragraph. I have mentioned the reasons above; statements are ambiguous and not in line with modern historians since the proposed content relies on primary sources like Puranas. Reasons are clearly mentioned above in the form of points (a,b,c). I have also mentioned above what may be included (as per reliable sources). Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Satnam2408:- Hello Robert McClenon thanks for such tireless involvement and contributions. Yes, the paragraph may be modified before inclusion. I would address proper content-related issues. Let me start with the issue regarding Jyotirmoyee Sarma. I think the word "persist" can be changed or the sentence can be restructured to resolve the issue. Let me quote the source under question.
In the inscriptions and records of the Pala period in which the Brahman names may be recognised, we also get references to a group of royal officials who were called Kayastha. From the eighth to the eleventh century A.D. the term Kayastha was used to indicate those who wrote public documents. At this time Kayastha was not a caste, and the term referred to service-holders in the royal court, and was used inter-changeably with the term Karan. All those who acted as scribes in the royal courts, and especially kept the accounts, were described as Karans or Kayasthas. Some Brahmans were mentioned to be Kayastha in occupation. — Sarma, Jyotirmoyee. Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus. Firma KLM, 1980. pp. 19.
In western India there is evidence of the existence of the Kayastha caste in the ninth century A.D. In north India also Kayastha as a caste was mentioned in several inscriptions between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. In Bengal most likely that Kayastha had developed as a caste in the tenth century A.D. It is surprising, therefore, that in the "Brihad-dharma" and the "Brahma-vairvarta Puranas" mention was made of the Karana caste, but not of the Kayastha. It is probable that at the time these volumes were written, the term Kayastha had not become acceptable as a proper caste name. Karana was then the established name — Sarma, Jyotirmoyee. Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus. Firma KLM, 1980. pp. 20.
The sentence According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name; the Karana was the prevalent caste name when these Puranas were composed can be restructured like this According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, Perhaps at the time these volumes were written, the term Kayastha had not yet been accepted as a proper caste name. Karana was the acknowledged caste name at that time. Jyotirmoyee Sarma has also traced the emergence of Kayastha in the 10th century, which is consistent with other reliable sources. It can't be WP:FRINGE.
None of the Puranas are cited as a source. Obviously, Puranas are the primary source (Which can also be used under special cautions by satisfying four pillars ). The scholars who have associated Kayastha with the Karana have mentioned these Puranas as a statement of fact. The fact that Brihadharma Purana mentioned the caste Karana and related basic information is essential to construct the basic environment. Further, the Kayastha was not mentioned in the Puranas but Karana was mentioned as I have already stated. So, it is the interpretation and Research of the Scholars who have associated these two. It is obvious that Secondary sources would rely on primary sources. Not only the Puranas but also the epigraphic evidence are the primary source, used by the scholars. The factual information is given in summarized format (Usually in one or two lines) by scholars (cited in the section) who have associated this two castes. So summarization is also not done by me.
Kayastha and Karana both are professional terms. The terms were used in the ancient sources to denote the professionals of scribes. It is necessary to note that the profession had no restrictions and picked up people from various varnas, which later crystallised to form the Karana or Kayastha castes. According to most scholars, crystalization occurred in the 10-th century. When a scholar is mentioning the references of Kayastha it is necessary to identify that by the word "Kāyastha" what they actually want to mean is the references are to professional or caste. In the Post Gupta period in (5 th century ), the Kayastha was not a caste. I am going to quote Tejram Sharma
Kayasthas frequently figure in our inscriptions usually as professional writers. The office of Kayastha (scribe) seems to have been instituted before the beginning of Gupta period. It seems likely that they had not developed into a caste during our period. — Sharma, Tej Ram. Personal and Geographical Names in the Gupta Inscriptions. Concept., 1978. pp. 115.
Clearly, Sharma is talking about Scribal officials. He himself is claiming that at the time Kayastha was not a caste. Now wink
The Pala, Sena and Varman kings and their descendants who did make claims to kshatriyahood almost imperceptibly
merged with the Bengal caste of the Kayasthas, which also ranked as shudras. Abul Fazl, for instance, describes these kings as Kayastha. Bengal, in effect, became the land of the Kayasthas, having been ruled by Kayasthas 'for about 2000 years'. Sanskrit sources such as the Rajatarangini however do not yet regard the Kayasthas as a caste in any sense but as a category of 'officials' or 'scribes. Between the fifth or sixth centuries (when we first hear of them) and the eleventh-twelfth centuries, its component elements were putative kshatriyas and, for the larger majority, brahmans, who either retained their caste identity or became Buddhists while laying down the sacred thread. The Kayasthas obtained the aspect of a caste perhaps under the Senas. — Wink, André. Al Hind: The Making of the Indo Islamic World, Vol. 1, Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam, 7th-11th Centuries. 2nd ed., Brill, 1991. pp. 269.
Wink himself is claiming The Kayasthas obtained the aspect of a caste perhaps under the Senas.
Sena Dynasty ruled in Bengal through the 11th and 12th centuries. I have specified Tejram Sharma and Wink only because they are referred here by the editor. Apart from these, most of the reliable sources specified the emergence of Kayastha in the 10-th or 11-th century. Thanks. Regards, Satnam2408 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian:-
Hey Satnam2408, such voluminous discussions & quotes won't help; you have just proved that your proposed para is self contradictory. According to your latest statement, Bengali Kayasthas (a professional group since 4th/5th century) emerged as a full-fledged caste during the 10th/11th century (as per all reliable sources). I reiterate that the statement by Jyotirmoyee Sarma above that, "perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name" when these Puranas were composed much later, one in the 13th and the other during the 14th/15th century doesn't make much sense (WP:FRINGE). You are not supposed to get it 'restructured', like you have said; no WP:OR/WP:SYN is acceptable, as you must be aware! Therefore the statements from the two Puranas stand unreliable, since they violate the common consensus among all reliable historians including Sarma that the Kayasthas obtained the status of a caste in Bengal during the Senas (10th/11th century). In fact, Kayasthas were so popular as a caste at that point of time that a sub-group was given the title of Kulin Kayastha almost during the same period; there's nothing called Kulin Karanas!! Even, Ronald Inden also mentions about Kulins and the other sub-groups under Maulika Kayasthas during that time (ref available in the article itself).
It is obvious from these discussions that Kayastha was the popular caste name before the two Puranas were composed, and such unreliable statements citing the Puranas (by whoever) is simply not acceptable. Yes, as I have already mentioned, I would also like to add reliably sourced statements (from the source provided by LukeEmily as well as other reliable sources) that the Karanas, which perhaps existed as a separate caste (or else the term 'Karana' was used interchangeably) finally fused with the Kayastha caste in Bengal. I am also open to add more reliably sourced statements related to the Karanas from "National Integration in Historical Perspective: By Rabindra Nath Chakraborty, (pages 121-124)". Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement from Satnam2408:- Hey Ekdalian, You are claiming that Kayastha was a popular caste when these Puranas were written and deriving conclusions from different sources where the claim is not explicitly stated. Probably this is the best example of WP:OR and WP:SYN. I am reiterating, that Jyotirmoyee Sarma has also postulated the crystallization of Kayastha as a caste in 10 the century, which is consistent with other reliable sources. Kayastha crystallized as a caste does not necessarily mean that the caste must be referred to as Kayastha in scriptures or other primary sources, especially when both the terms Karan and Kayastha were used synonymously. She is talking about the term "Kayastha" which according to him perhaps was not acceptable as a proper caste name when these Puranas were written. Karana was the established name.
B)
I reiterate that the statement by Jyotirmoyee Sarma above that, "perhaps the term Kayastha didn't persist as a proper caste name" — User:Ekdalian
- No it's not the statement of Jyotirmoyee Sarma. I am again providing the quote -
In Bengal most likely that Kayastha had developed as a caste in the tenth century A.D. It is surprising, therefore, that in the "Brihad-dharma" and the "Brahma-vairvarta Puranas" mention was made of the Karana caste, but not of the Kayastha. It is probable that at the time these volumes were written, the term Kayastha had not become acceptable as a proper caste name. Karana was then the established name. — Sarma, Jyotirmoyee. Caste Dynamics Among the Bengali Hindus. Firma KLM, 1980. pp. 20.
C) You have claimed that my restructured sentence - According to Jyotirmoyee Sarma, Perhaps at the time these volumes were written, the term Kayastha had not yet been accepted as a proper caste name. Karana was the acknowledged caste name at that time. is a WP:OR. How? Please explain? Is it different from the statement? Thanks, Regards,Satnam2408 (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian:-
Hello Satnam2408, please note that I was just quoting Jyotirmoyee Sarma considering your draft version. It may slightly differ from the actual quote (I should have been more cautious), but essentially, it says the same, "It is probable that at the time these volumes were written, the term Kayastha had not become acceptable as a proper caste name." Therefore, my logic is equally applicable to the above statement. Sarma goes on to say, "Karana was then the established name.", based on the primary sources, which defies all reliable secondary sources by modern historians. I have nothing more to add, I believe I have explained my point.
Thanks, Robert McClenon for summarizing my point, where you have mentioned, "Their reasons for disagreeing appear to be that it is based on ancient primary sources, and that it is inconsistent as to centuries." I don't wish to add any further criticism; would simply reiterate that primary sources (in this case Puranas, though composed later) which doesn't mention the caste name (Kayastha) as opposed to all reliable historians, and even Sarma using such terms like 'surprising' and 'probable', I don't think such statements deserve mention in our article. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Satnam2408:- I would say the statement of Jyotirmoyee Sarma can be scrapped. Because he is not confident about his statement. There are many other statements from different scholars are cited in the paragraph. To add general information regarding Karan and Kayastha we can add pure analysis and interpretations. In Bengal still the word Karan represents the Kayastha caste. Nicholas has given an analysis. I am providing the quote here
Even excluding numerous other features that identify the Brhaddharma Purana as a Bengali work, this discussion of the castes leaves no doubt that it is speaking about Bengal. Six centuries later most of the caste names still appear in Bengal—and not elsewhere in India—little modified from those given in the text. The places of the Karanas (Kayasthas) and Ambasthas (Vaidyas) above the other Sudras are quite evident in contemporary Bengali society. And the high-ranking Brahmans' provision of priests for the high Sudras, while "fallen" Brahmans provide them for others, is a characteristic pattern today. — Courtright, Paul B., and Lindsey Harlan. From the Margins of Hindu Marriage: Essays on Gender, Religion and Culture. Oxford University Press, 1995. pp. 149.
Hey Robert McClenon the history of castes in Bengal rely primarily on these scriptures. Please see the Baidya another caste of Bengal. The origin section is mainly based on scriptures. Reliable sources like Nicholas and Hitesranjan Sanyal are also not exceptions. Thanks,Satnam2408 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Ekdalian:-Satnam2408, I have no objection to other reliably sourced (relevant) statements; we can discuss on the article talk page, and incorporate such statements (excluding statements from the Puranas without proper interpretation). We don't need the DRN platform for the same. Please note that I have mentioned earlier above that "including them in the article on Baidya, as per consensus, has different reasons altogether, explained earlier"! TrangaBellam has incorporated statements from these two Puranas (from reliable sources with/without proper interpretation) in the article on Baidya and could achieve consensus only because of the lack of other origin theories related to the Baidyas as a caste! We are not supposed to discuss more here, but I can only mention that the origin of the Kayastha community in Bengal is well-documented (since the Gupta period) by several reliable authors. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2022 (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.
Closed as premature. Although there were repeated discussions in the past, most recently in January 2022, there has not been discussion at the article talk page recently. There has been a post by the filing editor, but that is not discussion. The filing editor should wait for the other editor to reply. If they do reply, and discussion is inconclusive, another request can be filed here. If they do not reply, see the Discussion Failure essay, but in the past there have been discussions. There should be a current inconclusive discussion before requesting mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2022 (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.
Editor Santasa99 on Zachumlia article and Zachumlia talk page, continues to delete sourced text. 1 year ago both of us were warned by admin Ed Johnston that if we revert each other without consensus we can be blocked. Now the same admin on their talk page told me I should ask for dispute resolution here so that someone can decide does my edit can go to article. John Antwerp Fine in his book late medieval Balkans writes that the most of the Hum interior was inhabited by Serbs and belonged to the Eastern Church.(under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church) The editor has obvious problems with mentioning the Serbs as the population under the excuse that Fine book from 1994 is wp:agematters and that he changed their mind in the other book from 2010. which is not true. The other book that the editor uses is mostly cantered around Dubrovnik. Zachumlia in 12th century was a crown Serbian land. Even Saint Sava ruled there for a while. Even Fine writes about by saying: Sava's first task was to place all Serbian territory under the jurisdiction of its new archbishop. This necessitated the ousting in 1220 of Greek bishops from the recently acquired towns of Prizren and Lipljan. Sava then proceeded to construct Serbia's Church administration, dividing all Serbia's territory (including Zeta and Hum) up into about ten bishoprics. The inclusion of Zeta and Hum contributed to the binding of these previously separate Serbian regions more tightly to Raska by helping their populations to identify themselves as Serbs and to perceive a commonality of interest with the Serbs of Raska. I wish to be able to add this information on Zachumlia article. I can also add additional sources from Cirkovic 2004 book or from Kardas from 2018 so that editor cannot accuse me that the source is wp:agematters. Can someone help with wording of the article which can be acceptable since Santasa99 refuses cooperation. Thank you.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Since I am not able to edit on the article, Santasa99 neither eventhough they broke the rule. I ask someone to help wording the article based on quotes and sources presented on Zachumlia talk page by both editors. Somehow that will include all the sources and have little more detailed information then the presented one by Santasa99. Thank you
Zachumlia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as no response. The other editor has not replied within three days after the filing editor entered this summary and notified them on their talk page. Participation at this noticeboard is voluntary. The filing editor should resume efforts to discuss on the article talk page, and should read the essay on failure to discuss. Do not edit-war. If efforts to discuss the article fail, they should follow the advice in the essay. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but there does not appear to have been disruptive editing. so try to discuss any content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (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.
I am attempting to insert sourced dates of establishment, names of founders, and relationships with other churches onto the page of a Christian denomination.
The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (MOSC) is an Indian Christian denomination with a history of ecclesial and legal disputes with the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (JSCC), both asserting themselves as legitimate successors of the Malankara Church, a historic denomination. The portion of this historic body that joined the Syriac Orthodox Church (SOC) is the predecessor to both groups, which have on occasion considered themselves only partially separated. However, multiple academic accounts, reliable news reports, and church-published histories acknowledge a discrete establishment period for the the MOSC in 1909 to 1912. This establishment has been repeatedly characterized as a MOSC separation and schism from the SOC, the JSCC being those who remained with the SOC. The leaders of the MOSC split have repeatedly been identified as Dionysious V, Dionysius of Vattasseril, and (more rarely) Baselios Paulose I. Sources also concur that the MOSC, while perhaps in communion (roughly meaning fully recognized and accepted as legitimate) with some Oriental Orthodox Churches, it is not fully recognized by the SOC and JSCC. More information and the majority of sources I am utilizing can be found in this edit. It should be noted that another editor previously involved in this discussion, Jude Didimus, was indeffed for unrelated sockpuppetry and hostility towards myself and is subsequently unavailable for additional comment. Zoticus777, though a single-purpose editor, has remained mostly civil and should have their opinion considered as sound and reasonable.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would go to third opinion as this is mostly a dispute between myself and Zoticus777, but this discussion has involved at least four parties over the last couple months. I would appreciate a volunteer identifying if my requested additions are suitable for inclusion in the article with the sources provided. While I have concerns regarding other portions of the article, these omissions appear to border on a violation of NPOV.
Summary of dispute by Zoticus777
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not followed up. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing within 48 hours after filing this request. Resume discussion on the article talk page, or, try starting discussion on the article talk page rather than just restating the same views over and over again. Ask for advice at the Teahouse, where you might also get a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2022 (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.
This dispute last for 6 months, and it goes in circles, recently editor reverted the edit for they were banned from the page, ignoring what actually says in sources, the quote goes like this: Most of Hum interior was settled by Serbs and belonged to Eastern Church (under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church, editor only left that "and belonged to the Eastern Church after the Great Schism" saying that the source from 1994 is aggematters, additionally I added even more sources on tp, but again there is no progress, I am asking someone to construct and expand the demographic section based on sources, since the dispute goes nowhere.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please expand the demographic section based on added sources on talk page
Summary of dispute by Santasa99
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Zachumlia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing party has not yet notified the other editor of the filing of this request for mediation. The filing party should notify the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2022 (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.
Closed. The editors have not responded for 48 hours after a request to state what further changes they wanted made to the article. I am inferring that the dispute has been resolved, and am closing the case as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2022 (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.
The dispute is mostly about race and racism. The other editor is trying to downplay or deny the involvement of white Brazilian in the killing, or of a white Brazilian reportedly harassing a journalist by trying to do a literal translation from Portuguese to English. It is quite hard to assume good faith considering that in a different article about race relations in Brazil, this user removed all the content, which I have replaced with plenty of sources. this edit
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have shown multiple sources contradicting the claims and edits of this user, but I was ignored. He is still repeating arguments that the sources linked throughout the article explain why racism and xenophobia is a relevant to the article about the murder. Even his own sources contradict his edits. I also see no rational argument to remove any mentions of white Brazilians when corroborated by reputable sources.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I honestly am trying this venue because I don't know a less aggressive way to deal with it. Should this fail, I will try the admin's noticeboard.
Summary of dispute by Knoterification
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
He opposes two of my edits to the article.
In one of them I use a source where one of the killers claims he has "the same skin colour as the victim", which he thinks should not be included. In the complex and ambigous racial panorama of Brazil it is not at all clear the killers were "white", just look at their pictures, and actually no source claims they were. Tet opposes my edit because he claims the article I used as a source states that even if the killers were black or brown it would still be a racist killing. Again, my point is not to claim that it was, or it wasn't a racist killing, just to add the information about one of the murderers statement about his skin colour, and how he used that to claim it was not a racist killing.
Secondly I edited a statement about a black reporter being harassed during protests against the murder. In the source he uses the term "gente de pele clara", meaning "people of light skin", which Tet translated in wikipedia as "white Brazilians", I edited and changed it to "people of light skin", to better reflect the source. If he wants to add the information about the reporter being specifically targeted by a white men, in addition to being harassed by people of light skin, I think it is fine.
In relation to my edit on "dominant minorities", I understand that it was wrong to delete his contribution and I should have discussed that on the talk page. For that I appologise.
But my point in that action was none of the sources claims white Brazilians are a dominant minority. They are sources that show that white Brazilians are in average wealthier and suffer less violent deaths than black and brown Brazilians. For the reasons I already explained, I don't think that is enough to make the claim that "white Brazilians are a dominant minority" like the other ones listed on the article (white South Africans during Apartheid, Alawites in Assad's Syria, Americo-Liberians in pre 1980's Liberia etcc) Knoterification (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor writes It is quite hard to assume good faith. It is necessary and required to assume good faith at this noticeboard. Questions about bad faith can be raised at WP:ANI, if they must be raised. So comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Reply - Only after you have read the boomerang essay if you really think that you have a strong case that the editor is editing in bad faith. If so, that is where you should report a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
This is a preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. Do either of the editors want to make any changes to the article? If so, please make a concise statement as to what you want to change in the article. Comment on content, not contributors. If no one has any concerns about article content, we will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by editors (Kabagambe)
Robert McClenon, There are a few updates of the situation since February when the murder took place. Because of the current dispute, I will not translate these updates from the Portuguese article since some of them are related to xenophobia.
On my statement, I'd like to revert two edits: [3], which is unnecessary since both sources already provide the claims of the killers. The previous version of this text already said that the accused denied their motivation was due to xenophobia and racism. This is their POV, and both media and the article shows that. [4] tries to reinforce that no white person was involved in the harassment of the journalist mentioned by literally copying what is written instead of interpreting the whole text. Various paragraphs mention insults and situations that are unique or more common to Black people in Brazil. "macacada" is a slur towards black people in Brazil, even if they are pardos.
In both cases, I have mentioned that these edits underplay the role of racism and xenophobia in Brazil, and also remove any blame towards White Brazilians in this particular situation. Tetizeraz - (talk page)19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
My contribution solely reproduces what is stated in two sources, his opposition to my contribution is based on his own interpretation of the sources. The fact that his main opposition to my contribution has nothing to do with the sources in itself, but with" underplay the role of racism and xenophobia in Brazil", shows he believes the article should have an agenda, instead of merely reporting what appears on the sources. We should not ignore information because it apparently goes against an agenda.
1. My first contribution is that one of the killers states that he has the same skin colour as the victim. I don't understand why that information is unaccaptable to be included. If we are going to talk about the "race" of those who harrassed a reporter in a minor event, not directly related to the murder, why not talk about the "race" of the murderers?
2. In the other I was mereley reproducing the same source he used. A man states he was harrassed by "people of light skin", which Tetizeraz interpreted as "white". I don't think that is correct. We cannot freely interpret a quote. That is Original Research. If he wants to add the fact that he was specifically harassed by a white man that is fine.
Please read the rules again. One editor has stated that they want to revert two edits. The other editor has not replied. I will allow another 24 hours for them to reply. If they are silent after that time, I will tell the first editor to revert the edits, after which we can discuss further if necessary.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick solution to this dispute. One short answer to the editor, since I was not able to: WP:YESPOV should have been mentioned by myself. I'm unsure on how to wikilink to diffs on other wikis, but this one is the last major change in Portuguese Wikipedia about the situation. There is also another small update on the situation of one city councilor who was accused to participating in the protests in Curitiba. He was supposed to lose his post, but a judge kept him in place (not sure the exact words in English, sorry). All other edits on wiki-pt were done to change words to the past tense. Tetizeraz - (talk page)16:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
User:Knoterification: You replied by adding to your previous statement rather than in the section for a reply, so that I didn't see it. In the future, please reply to me below my statement. We can now discuss adding those statements back in.
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 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.
Disagreement over need for {{Advert}} and other tags and removal of material in History section based on claims of WP:PROMO issues. See discussion on talk page. These are the disputed changes.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I need a better understanding of Hipal's objection to the state of the article before they removed large sections. Reasons for removals are given in edit comments but I'm having trouble mapping that to policy or I don't see the same problems Hipal sees. I am unable to get clarification from Hipal because discussion goes in circles or is terminated with we continue to disagree.
Summary of dispute by Hipal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Until editors are willing to answer questions and stop misrepresenting others, I don't see how we can make any progress. --Hipal (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hipal as I understand it, you're not obliged to participate here. If you are unwilling, I believe the next stop on our dispute resolution tour is WP:RFC. Please let us know. I don't want to waste more of anyone's time here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how we can make progress without working much more cooperatively. If you simply want to get a better understanding of my position, ask. I'll answer. I hope you'll reconsider doing the same. RfCs require simple questions: I don't see any at this point. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Kvung, have you had good results from DRN in situations like this? I've not. If you think it would give you a better understanding of my position and get you to address my concerns, then perhaps it's worth trying. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else where you think we could get good results? I've had good results at WP:3O and WP:ANI. I participate in a lot of RfCs and they seem to work. I haven't used WP:DRN before. You don't want to use WP:3O. At this point we have disagreement, not misconduct so I don't think WP:ANI is appropriate.
I don't see what would be so complicated about RfC questions: Should we restore the material you deleted? Should we remove the tags? We could do two RfCs if you think answering both questions at once is too complicated. But, in any case, with WP:RFC we don't need your cooperation. We bring in other editors and they form a consensus and one of us (or both?!) joins that or not but we find out who holds an outlying position.
As for understanding your position, I have asked you for clarification and when I get answers they tend to just create more confusion for me or pull me away from WP:AGF. I appreciate if it feels the same way from your side and so all the more reason to get help from a moderator.
You don't want to use WP:3O That's another example of the misrepresentations that I mention. Please strikeout.
with WP:RFC we don't need your cooperation If you're looking for excuses to not cooperate, then we'll not solve anything. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Icertis Laura
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PK650
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Icertis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Statement
I am willing to mediate this dispute, but before I do so, I would like confirmation of who is willing to participate. I note that at least 1 user has a disclosed COI and will take that into consideration. Please review the rules and guidelines about discussions on this page and indicate that you have done so. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2022 (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.
No. We don't do this here. You don't open a DRN and then start arguing before a volunteer can even review the case. Read the rules at the top of the page before you post anything. Now- as to why I am closing this case- the discussion has not been going on nearly long enough. We do not "review edits" or "verify edits" We mediate discussions. Thats it. Discussions that have been going on for an extended period of time without coming to a conclusion. Finally- there have been accusations of behavior issues, and those are outside our jurisdiction. As I see it- you have 3 options- 1) Go back to the talk page, be civil, and discuss this like adults to come to a compromise. 2) Go back to the talk page, be civil, discuss at least a week, be unable to find a compromise, come back here and then open a case but being respectful of each other through the entire process. Or 3) keep on like you are and end up at the WP:ANI earning at best warnings, at worst blocks. Your choice how you wish to proceed. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2022 (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.
I discussed my edit to the Google Pay wiki page which InfiniteNexus has taken issue with despite it being well-sourced. I removed some article information as it was either no longer accurate or was never true to begin with. In response he has now resorted to speculation and whataboutism fallacies when questioned as to why my edits should be reverted. I was also told to "keep [my edits] simple," despite such oversimplification leading to confusing phrasing. I would like my 100% true and accurate edits to not be reverted anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tytygh55 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate. I clearly explained the reasons why your changes are unnecessary, and the speculation bit was a throwaway addendum which I acknowledged was speculation. And to repeat, I have no problem with removing article information as it was either no longer accurate or was never true to begin with. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like my edits to be verified by a third party as to whether they are accurate or not.
Summary of dispute by InfiniteNexus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly, I would like to note that Tytygh55 failed to notify me of this thread. I'm also doubtful whether opening a DRN thread when the discussion at Talk:Google Pay has only been going on for a few hours was appropriate or necessary. Regardless, I will provide a brief summary of the dispute:
In 2018, the Google Pay app was launched. Then in 2020, Google announced that the app would be replaced by a new, redesigned version of Google Pay. On the Play Store, this 2020 Google Pay app is listed separately from the 2018 Google Pay app, with the latter set to be gradually phased out. In 2022, Google changed their minds and announced that the 2018 Google Pay app (which was in the middle of its discontinuation) would house the new Google Wallet service.
A few hours ago, Tytygh55 made a WP:BOLD edit at Google Pay, in which they adjusted the article's focus to the 2018 app, asserting that it was a different service from the 2020 app. I disagreed with this assessment and reverted the bold edit, restoring the WP:STATUSQUO per WP:BRD. On the talk page, I noted that such a change was unnecessary because the 2020 app is the primary (and soon-to-be only) version of Google Pay and that we should ignore the technical aspects of the separate-app-listing deal. I'm genuinely mystified at their claims that I [took] issue with [their edits] despite it being well-sourced, because I don't see how this has anything to do with sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
"2020 app is the primary (and soon-to-be only) version of Google Pay"
W H A T
They just released Google Wallet yesterday! What are you talking about? Google Pay is a service that you use when you pay online/in-app/in-store, hence the terminology "Pay with Google Pay!" I'm trying to move all Google Wallet information to Google Wallet, remove it from Google Pay, and then have a short blurb about "GPay," which is where you can put the logo and screenshot you like...
I have stated, numerous times, that I have no issue with moving Wallet-related info from Google Pay to Google Wallet. What I do have an issue with is refocusing the Google Pay article on the 2018 app rather than the 2020 app, which is the primary version. I also oppose any split of the 2020 app from the 2018 app, as I stated in the other discussion. I'm not entirely sure why you are confused with my statement that 2020 app is the primary (and soon-to-be only) version of Google Pay. Google Wallet (2022) is not the same app as Google Pay (2020).
Technology is an area on Wikipedia where there are not many active editors, so I am not surprised your edits over there have not encountered any objection. I also don't know the details of your edits on those articles, so I cannot comment on whether they were good or not. But every service is different, so just because you have implemented similar changes on those articles doesn't mean that it is the right move here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Google. Pay. and. G. Pay. are. seperate. apps.
Tha package name is completely different! My compromise with you was allowing the silly ""redesign" section (even though it's a companion app)
You are right that Google Wallet is not the same as GPay. Google Wallet is the same as Google Pay (2018).
The package name (walletnfcrel) is all you need to look at. You keep using speculation and it's hurting your case. GPay has not expanded since 2020 into the US. Google Wallet launched this week in 39 countries and Google Pay (the service & 2018 app) expanded just last year in 2021 to Israel. Tytygh55 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
You don't seem to get my point, or you're intentionally ignoring my previous statements. On a technical side of things, yes, they are separate apps. But to consumers and the general public, they're the same service. The 2020 Google Pay app is the replacement to the 2018 Google Pay app (per sources), and this is already the case in the U.S. As previously stated, Google is an American company, so our articles should conform to that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
To phrase it more simply: in the U.S., the 2018 Google Pay app is no longer available. The 2020 Google Pay app is. So why would our article for Google Pay be focused on the discontinued 2018 app rather than the 2020 one? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not going to be focused on the "2018 one." It's going to be focused on Google Pay as a service where you tap your phone/watch to pay, or pay online/in-app.
InfiniteNexus Since you started this speculation, I will give you some reasoning as to why I believe GPay (2020) is going away. Groupon announced earlier this year that their deals were going to bring their offers to the "Deals" tab in the GPay app. Guess what? Didn't happen. But do you know what they did do? They integrated their offers with Google Wallet. Now in the Groupon app you can press "Add to Google Wallet" when acquiring a deal. I could also mention Google no longer listing Plaid as one of their business partners (the service that links GPay to bank accounts), or how the 2020 GPay app led to an exodus of employees. Google is not keeping this app around. It is dead. I will not put that in the Wiki article since it's speculation, but it is going away (at least in the US.) Google is not one to keep apps around, especially if they pose a problem. Tytygh55 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Huh? What you're describing, Google Pay as a service where you tap your phone/watch to pay, or pay online/in-app, is Google Wallet. And there was no speculation on my part, could you point that out for me? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
InfiniteNexus No, that's Google Pay. I linked Apple Pay and Apple Wallet for a reason. Google mimicks their terminology for their services. Google Pay and Google Wallet have different developer sites. One describes how banks can issue payment cards to Google Pay and how developers can accept Google Pay online. The other details how developers can add passes to Google Wallet. GPay links to Google Wallet which links to Google Pay though the top banner. Tytygh55 (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Er, that's not correct. That picture actually proves my point. The Google representative wrote, When you try to open the old Google Pay app, you will be prompted to use the new one. You can still use the old app for now but features will start being turned off soon. The "old app" in question is the 2018 app, and the "new one" refers to the 2020 app. I find it concerning that after lengthy explanations and evidence you still fail to see that the 2020 Google Pay app is the only surviving Google Pay app, and the 2018 app is in the process of being discontinued. This appears to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Google Pay 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.
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive discussion at the article talk page before seeking assistance since the way this encyclopedia works is to work things out through discussion between editors, not to just post an edit and run for help if the edit is disputed. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here, but at this point you've not even tried to discuss the issue. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 23 July 2022 (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.
Under symbolism, I explain that the Actaeon myth describes a psychological injury. The dogs symbolize Actaeon's outward facing, normal sexual aggression; the purpose of which is to sniff out a desirable female. After innocently intruding on the naked Goddess, she flew into a rage and cursed Actaeon. No longer able to pursue the normal object of desire -- women -- his dogs (sexual aggression) turned inward and attacked him. Actaeon is now at best a homosexual, or like me, a bisexual. I suffered this same injury at age 4. I unraveled the mystery. I am Actaeon. Who better to explain this myth?
[Does this site have the courage to reveal this truth? That is the issue.]
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
My edit, providing an explanation of the Actaeon myth, was denied without any substantive reason other than "we don't accept material like this."
Doesn't this forum accept and publish the truth, no matter how hot or controversial the topic? Why was my material rejected?
Actaeon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Actaeon2nd, I mean this with all due respect, but the only outcome I can imagine here is a metaphorical tearing apart by the hounds of Wikipedia. If I might make a suggestion, return to the article and try to advance it through the use of reliable sources. Hope you are having a nice weekend. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
As I've already made clear. I am Actaeon. There is no more reliable source on this subject. In a gestalt weekend session we all went out to lunch to a sandwich shop. I knew what I needed to work on. There was a cute girl behind the counter. "I can't have her. I'm not allowed", I said. "Who told you no?" asked the therapist. I immediately got a flashback to a memory of me as a 4 or 5 year old wandering into the bathroom only to see my mother emerging naked from the shower. She got hystercial and screamed "GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT" I retreated without a word. Now imagine me as an adolescent with that "I can't have her, I'm not allowed" silent curse in my brain. BTW, I was lucky enough to encounter the myth of Actaeon in Joseph Campbell's "Hero of a Thousand Faces" retelling of that otherwise florid myth soon after that session. Now my question for you is "what are you so afraid of?". What I've described rings true and you know it. Why would you go on hiding the real meaning of this myth after you've been presented the truth? Are you calling me and Ovid both liars? Yeah this would shake up Academia and maybe a lot of psychologists. Are you really going to act like the gatekeeper of truth, like Twitter often does? I thought this was an open forum to educate and enlighten people. Shouldn't young mothers in particular be aware of this vulnerability. Come on man, do the right thing. Actaeon2nd (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2022 (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.
Closed as possibly not a content dispute. Three days after being asked what changes they wanted to make to the article, the editors have not replied. So if there are content issues, discuss them on the article talk page, Talk:Nova Scotia. That's what article talk pages are for. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2022 (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.
User Danachos updated the Nova Scotia page to include Wabanaki history in the intro and in the History section. There were several edits made. User Magnolia677 blanket reverted all edits citing issues with the Creation story being irrelevant to the History section. Danachos undid the revision, requesting more targeted edits rather than blanket revisions. Discussion occurred on the Nova Scotia talk page, and a consensus was reached to not have the Creation story present; however, there were requests to not erase Indigenous histories, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties mention in the intro or the more beefed up pre-European section of the History section.
Users Moxy and Magnolia677 reverted the article back to its near-original. To note: The European information remains unsourced, such as the Acadian presence and treaties between Britain and France. The problem both users seemed to have were the fact that the Wabanaki information was unsourced, with user Magnolia677 further claiming that information––such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties and the districts of Mi'kma'ki that overlap with the modern day province––"is almost entirely out of scope and only marginally relevant to Nova Scotia."
User Danachos then, in response to both the need for citations and to its 'marginal relevancy,' rewrote the previous edits, making changes here and there, and added appropriate citations throughout.
User Danachos made special mention to both Moxy and Magnolia677 about how frequently European histories are favoured over Indigenous histories, and there is a history of censorship when it comes to equal-footing writing. I (Danachos) urge those deciding upon this dispute to consider the uneven requirements made of Indigenous inclusion compared to European inclusion and to make note of the consistent history North America has in the erasure of Indigenous topics and presence. The goal of the Nova Scotia page is to have a more equitable overview of the province.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Most basically, the addition of more than just three users is helpful. Further, additional viewpoints (and different sets of biases) should help round out this issue. Finally, although I (Danachos) have a long history on Wikipedia, I still do not entirely understands the steps needed to advance issues; having users of more expertise should assist this process
Content in dispute
Mi'kmaq: Nopa Skoꞌsia[1][2] The land that comprises what is now Nova Scotia was inhabited by the Miꞌkmaw Nation at the time of European exploration.[3] Their country, Miꞌkmaꞌki, has existed within the Dawnland region[4] since time immemorial.[3][5] In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk.[6] Britain fought France and the Wabanaki Nations[7] for the territory on numerous occasions for over a century afterwards.[8] The Fortress of Louisbourg was a key focus point in the battle for control. In the fight against the French, following the Great Upheaval (1755–1763) where the British deported the Acadians en masse, the Conquest of New France (1758–1760) by the British, and the Treaty of Paris (1763), France had to surrender Acadia to the British Empire. Once surrendered, the resulting jurisdiction included what would later become Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in 1769 and 1784, respectively, and encompassed much of the Wolastoqiyik and Miꞌkmaw countries.[9] The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[10][11] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[12][13][14]
The seven traditional districts of Mi'kma'ki, excluding Tqamkuk.
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki[3] or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[19] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna.
Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw.[3] The eighth district, Tqamkuk, is today understood to be Newfoundland. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi),[3] which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital of national Mi'kmaw governance today in the Potlotek reserve.[19][20] Representatives from across Mi'kma'ki sat, and continue to sit, on the council which consisted of captains (Kji'keptan), who led the council, wampum readers (Putu's), who maintained treaty and traditional laws, and soldiers (Smagn'is), who protected the people, as well as a women's council.[19][20][3]
Mi'kmaw Law is called Netukulimk which drives and oversees the use of the natural bounty of Mi'kma'ki "for the self-support and well-being of the individual and the community."[21] Functioning as the foundation of sustaining Mi'kmaw families, communities, and society[22] in order to achieve "adequate standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of [the] environment,"[21] this mindset understands the whole of life to be interconnected, describing the rights and responsibilities of the Mi’kmaq with their families, communities, nation, and eco-system.[23]
Notes & Refs
^"Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Marshall, Canada is engaging in negotiations with Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy on the basis that they have treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather towards earning a moderate livelihood. These treaty rights must be implemented. Along with these treaty rights, First Nations maintain that they continue to hold Aboriginal rights and title throughout their traditional territory."[15]
^Jacobs, Rebecca. "The Wabanaki Forest". Community Forests International. Community Forests International. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Wabanaki comes from the Algonquian word Wabanakik, meaning "Dawnland", and stems from waban (meaning "light" or "white," referring to the dawn in the east), and aki ("land"). The Wabanakik region roughly spans the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and parts of New England. Wabanaki ("People of the Dawnland") refers to a number of eastern Algonquian nations — and to the special forests across Wabanakik that they call home.
^West, Jerry (22 October 2015). "Mi'kmaq resistance kept British holed up in their forts, historian finds". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 4 July 2022. In the early clashes between the British and Mi'kmaq, the British usually came out on the losing end, new research suggests. The Mi'kmaq were so successful at defending against the settlers, British soldiers were often too scared to leave their forts, according to historical documents.
^Prins, Harald E. L. ""We Fight with Dignity": The Miawpukek Mi'kmaq Quest for Aboriginal Rights in Newfoundland". Kansas State University: 292. Retrieved 4 July 2022. For centuries, the Miawpukek band has maintained a unique relationship with the Mi'kmaq bands of Cape Breton Island (or Unama'kik foggy land). Not only is Cape Breton relatively close to Newfoundland (Cabot Strait is just over 100 km wide — two long nights of canoe travel, only a day by sailing vessel), but this island is also the traditional place of residence of the grand chief and his assembly of keptins (spiritual leaders) organized in the Sante' Mawio'mi (Grand Council). Hence many Mi'kmaq consider Cape Breton Island the traditional head district in Mi'kma'kik{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^Huber, Bernard (January 2009). Negotiating the Political Ecology of Aboriginal Resource Management: How Mi'kmaq Manage their Moose and Lobster Harvest in Unama’ki, Nova Scotia, Canada(PDF) (Master of Science in Geography). Victoria University of Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Cape Breton Island (Unama'ki in Mi'kmaq language), just north of the main peninsula of Nova Scotia, is widely regarded as the heart of the Mi'kmaq nation and has been hosting the annual meeting of the Mi'kmaq Grand Council (Sante' Mawio'mi) since pre-colonial times. Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki was divided into seven semi-sovereign districts and the district chiefs would convene as the Grand Council for decisions of nation-wide importance.
^"L'nuey PEI". @lnueypei. Twitter. Retrieved 4 July 2022. What does "Mi'kma'ki" mean? It's the Mi'kmaq Traditional territory: all of PEI & Nova Scotia; Eastern New Brunswick; Gaspé Peninsula; & southern Newfoundland. The picture shows the 7 Mi'kmaq districts, including Epekwitk aqq Piktuk. Care to try and pronounce any of the others?
^Scott, Todd. "In defense of Mi'kma'ki: Mi'kmaq military power in Northeastern North America (1675-1761)". Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society. Royal Nova Scotia Historical Society. Retrieved 4 July 2022. Starting in the last quarter of the seventeenth century until the end of the Seven Years War, the Mi'kmaq successfully defended their land, families and way of life through seven colonial wars against the British. These efforts kept British settlers from migrating into Mi'kma'ki. From the west the Mi'kmaq successfully projected their power along the Kennebec region of present day Maine. In the east they demonstrated they were a power to be reckoned with by frustrating British economic activities and settlements in Newfoundland. When British settlers finally migrated into Mi'kma'ki in 1749, the Mi'kmaq were able to contain them in British fortified enclaves until a peace was established in 1761.
^"Law". Tepi'ketuek Mi'kmaw Archives. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
Summary of dispute by Magnolia677
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This Indian tribe covered an area much larger than Nova Scotia, so adding five paragraphs and two photos unbalances the article. Moreover, the text is hardly relevant to this article about a Canadian province. Maybe if this tribe had made a large contribution to the province's development--built a railway or a university--then of course, but five paragraphs about their superstitions and treaty signing does not improve the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Moxy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As mentioned before WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.....better article for this information would be at Miꞌkmaq or Wabanaki Confederacy...not a provincial article. Why are we talking about a huge region spanning Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New England in this article?Moxy-23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Because five of the seven districts (aka, more than half) of Mi'kma'ki overlap with Nova Scotia, including the country's capital at Mniku (Potlotek), Unama'ki? Because the treaties signed between the British and Mi'kmaw Nations constitute living documents and are equal in importance to the ceding of French claims in the Treaty of Paris (esp. since the Peace and Friendship Treaties maintain Mi'kmaw aboriginal rights and title to all of Nova Scotia's territory)? Because other similar articles (e.g., Bavaria, Wales, Hebei, Tamil Nadu, Osun State, Catalonia, etc.) also have similar historical threads in their intros and their articles?
In response to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, especially that "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses"; this is why I went back and properly sourced all the information. It has been reported in mainstream media, books, modern and historical government files, etc. Danachos (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Yup "aboriginal rights and title" is the point being made about 5 percent of the population. Would love to see integrated history as is done in the examples you gave.Moxy-02:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Nova Scotia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. One editor has responded, and so is aware of the filing. Notification of the remaining editor on their user talk page is required. The space that is provided for a summary by an editor is for a summary by that editor, not for discussion of the summary. Any discussion at this noticeboard is supervised by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I will act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules. There will be no back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not communicate effectively; sometimes their main purpose is to make the poster feel better. Please read the rules a second time. Discuss content, not contributors.
It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct? I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change. If you have any other questions, please ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by editors (Nova Scotia)
Statement by Danachos:- In response to: "It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct?" This is incorrect. The original edit did indeed have a creation history added alongside additional historical information (in the history section above "European Settlement") and along with an updated introduction. After that was reverted—citing the creation history was not necessary on this page—I conceded that point and stopped trying to add it in. I do not wish to have the creation history present nor have I tried to include the creation history in the last several attempts to edit the page.
In response to: "I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed": What I would like to see changed in the article is everything you see here on the dispute resolution page. 1) To maintain the name "Nopa Sko'sia" at the beginning of the introduction (note: I did not add that in myself; it was deleted along with my edits by one of the cited editors here in this dispute resolution; after its deletion, I re-added it along with my other edits, adding two sourced citations for its use as Mi'kmaw translation of "Nova Scotia"); 2) Update the introduction to the page that integrates Wabanaki (and, specifically, Mi'kmaw) history. This means updating the language to the modern Canadian standard (i.e., referring to the nation as a nation, talking about their country as a country, considering treaties made with Indigenous nations equal of importance to treaties made with European nations, etc.); 3) Updating the History section of the article to include a proper section prior to "European Settlement" (labelled in my edits as "Indigenous Dawnland" referring to the region's translated English name) rather than the current measly two sentences that are on the live page. I also moved the current Mi'kmaw family photo down to the appropriate time (photo was taken in 1871, so I moved it to the "19th century" section, the 1870s part of the history section), and I included under Indigenous Dawnland two maps of the countries of the region, showing all the countries of the Dawnland or Wabanaki Confederacy and zooming in on the Mi'kmaw country (again, please note: five of the seven / eight districts of Mi'kma'ki historically and currently overlap with Nova Scotia, including the country's capital at Mniku, Unama'ki, in Potlotek). Danachos (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
First comment by random editor (Nova Scotia)
I look at the above content, and it seems very solidly sourced, and relatively well written (I'd omit flavourful language 'time immemorial' in favour of 'record history' or similar). There is certainly a place in the Nova Scotia article for this most of this content (the first three paragraphs, the last two doesn't belong in the Nova Scotia article but elsewhere), though in the lead in this version was substantially too wordy. Particularly mentioning the individual 'districts' seem out of place (like in In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk. or The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[18][19] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[20][21][22], which could simply be summarized as the 'territory of the Wabanaki Confederacy', or alternatively 'the Wabanakik region' or similar). The lead should cover the very broad strokes, not the finicky details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}05:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by Moderator (Nova Scotia)
The filing editor listed two other editors, User:Moxy and User:Magnolia677. They made preliminary statements, but have not replied to my request for a first statement. I will ask them whether they will reply, in one or two paragraphs, to the filing editor, who wants to introduce large amounts of additional material into the article. I will also ask the filing editor if they wish to make an additional one-paragraph statement. If the other editors do not want to discuss the rewriting, then we will figure out where to go from here.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
Just to much...not the place for laws and myths of one group comprising only 0.51% of the population ......i am ok with what is below ...not the above.... Lead a whole other issue as are other articles. Moxy-07:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[1] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna.
Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi), which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital today in the Potlotek reserve.[1][2]
References
^ abGallant, David Joseph. "Mi'kmaq". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
I am going to start over again. It is not clear to me whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, we will try to resolve it. If not, we will close this case.
Please read the ground rules and comply with them. (There hasn't been a problem in that way so far.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, whether they think that there is an issue about the content of the article, and, if so, what is the issue. If you want to add something, tell where you want to add it, either to a section or between sections. If you want to subtract something, tell what you want to subtract. Otherwise, please explain concisely what you want changed. Then we will decide where to go. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as pending in another forum. The filing editor has also nominated the article for deletion. Filing cases in two different forums at the same time is forum shopping and is strongly discouraged. DRN discourages forum shopping by closing any case that is also pending in another forum.
Article content issues, which are what are discussed here, are also relevant to whether the subject is notable and whether its content is verifiable. Any content issues can be discussed in the context of whether to keep or delete the article. If the article is kept, and if there are any remaining content issues that have not been resolved by the AFD discussion after further discussion on the article talk page, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 26 July 2022 (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.
Primary dispute over whether to consider this person a billionaire, but also about general appropriateness of content in the biographical article. Could use additional perspectives.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Need some additional opinions & perspectives. Want to avoid edit war and 3RR violation. Thanks.
Summary of dispute by Lurxxer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 70.163.78.10
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Paolo Tiramani 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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I made an extremely valid entry about the a major shift in the responsibilities of a Chief Marketing Officer, the entry was "The role of the Chief Marketing Officer is transitioning to that of business-driver with the expectation that the CMO own growth strategies and take primary responsibility for revenue generation"
This is factual information gathered from an article I read by Deloitte from a joint study conducted with the CMO Council. Yet Viewmount Viking, someone who clearly knows nothing about the CMO role or function removed my entry. He made a claim of my entry being salesy. However he allowed the entry from the cmox.co website that is clearly irrelevant to the actual CMO function to remain and it is clear a sales entry. It is the 3rd reference in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By applying fair and equal practices. If you allow the entry from CMOX.co then there is no reason for my entry to be removed. I am quoting valid resources. The statement I made is proven by a study. The entry from CMOX.co is mere promotion of their website.
I am pointing out EXACTLY what is happening to the role of the CMO today. What gives someone who has no idea of what a CMO is the right to remove my comment. I am an MBA graduate with over 25 years of industry experience.
Summary of dispute by Viewmont Viking
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Chief Marketing Officer discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. This appears to be a dispute over whether a draft should be moved to article space, which is not one of the types of disputes that is addressed at DRN. You can discuss whether a draft should be accepted into article space on the talk page of the reviewer or at the Teahouse. There is a drawback to the message that is used when an article is moved to draft space. The message focuses only on verifiability and reliable sources. In this case, the problem was not a concern about the reliability of the sources, but that the draft does not establish either musical notability or general notability. Also, the presence of an article in another language Wikipedia is not a reason to accept an article in the English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has its own notability standards, and those of the Hebrew Wikipedia may not be the same as those of the English Wikipedia. Please read the musical notability guideline before discussing notability at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2022 (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.
The value was moved to drafts, and it shouldn't be there.
Here are the following reasons why I believe it should get approved:
1. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources" - and it is.
Haaretz & Maariv (newspaper) are the biggest and Influential Newspapers in Israel.
Also The Jerusalem Post is Considered a reliable and large source of information.
2. In this case it's an artist with high percentage of listeners over 600k views on Youtube, and over 300k on Spotify, and reached top 50 chart on Shazam. The editor deleted this data. It's data which was confirmed in Spotify and Youtube.
3. He released an album that and sold a lot of copies.
4. He has a Wiki page in Hebrew under the name - שי וואייז
I just translated it. There are artists that have value in English wiki that have much less coverage. Here are some: Sun Tailor , Maya Isacowitz and many many more.
If you could review it again - It will be the world for me 'cause I do believe that he is entitled to a value in Wiki under Wikipedia conditions: Press Coverage (Radio, TV & newspapers), has public interest, streams online, and he released an album.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I explained to the editors in mine and his talk page - and one of them said that these big newspapers from Israel are not enough, and the other didn't responded
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please confirm my content, and cancel the deletions they did that made the value anemic.
Summary of dispute by NJD-DE
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tagishsimon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Shay Wize 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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
#/media/File:Research_design_and_evidence.svg){kind=link}