Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 240

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yola language

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The users Moling Luacha and Galloglach21 changed the extinction date of Yola in the infobox from 1998 (the death of Jack Devereux) to the late 1800s, their reason being Jack Devereux was not the last native speaker. They have not provided any source to support this claim, and the sources they are using to support the claim that Yola died out in the late 1800s do not actually state this directly (making it original research).

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

Talk:Yola language#Jack Devereux 'last native speaker'

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can explain to these users why their sources don't support their extinction date claim and that they cannot refute a claim without providing a reliable source.

Summary of dispute by Moling Luachra

Galloglach has summarised this dispute very well. There is no original research here and the only backing provided for Jack Devereux being a native speaker is an offhand comment from a newspaper article. User treetoes believes this is sufficient and wants a source to explicitly refute this, otherwise it must be true but that's clearly a logical fallacy.

User treetoes does not seem to understand what a source is, how research works and the description given above is highly deceptive. As Galloglach said, a small number of users have continued to try editing the Yola page to display misleading information and are not interested in sourcing it so I think some kind of lock should be put on.

There is no reputable academic source that states Devereux was native. Everything scholarly suggests he collected songs from Yola and that's it. As for the language going extinct in the late 19th century, there's two good academic sources on it. The first is The English Language in Ireland by Hogan, originally published in 1927, so closer to the time the language would've been spoken. On page 44 of the edition on Archive.org, in a section titled "The Dialect of Forth and Bargy", he explicitly states "In the baronies of Forth and Bargy (Especially in Forth), an area of about 200 sq. miles lying south of Wexford town, isolated by the sea and a long mountain, there lived on until the last century another descendant of the old Kildare English". This was written in 1927, much closer to the date when the language would have been spoken, and it clearly states it's gone. It was a scholarly enough source to be quoted by Raymond Hickey in his Irish English: History and present-day forms.

The other source is Hickey himself, a scholar who has published widely on the history of Hiberno-English (as well as the above book, he has another one specific to Irish in Dublin). This time, it comes from his book The Oxford Handbook of Irish English. On page 48, it explicitly states "After a period of decline, it was replaced entirely in the early nineteenth century by general Irish English of the region."

That's two reputable academic sources (of which a random, unsourced Irish Independent Article is neither) stating that the language was dead in the late 19th century, at the latest, and certainly didn't make it until the 20th.

Unless you're going to tell me one of the foremost scholars on the topic of the history of English in Ireland (and specifically in Leinster!) is wrong (and he was certainly aware of Devereux) and a scholarly source from much closer to the actual time period where it should have still been spoken if Devereux was the last is also wrong, then you're going to need good evidence; not just a newspaper article. Moling Luachra (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Galloglach21

Firstly, I think the original summary of events is highly inaccurate to what the actual issue is. That being; since at least 2016 a small cadre of users has been adamant on editing the page for the Yola language to change the date of extinction to 1998 with the death of a local mummer caroler called Jack Devereux as well as to include revival information.

My opposition to this is based on factuality and notoriety. The source used to justify this edit to the date of extinction is an article written in 2020 by the Irish independent (found here: https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/fascinating-book-on-yola-dialect-of-forth-and-bargy/39143296.html) which mentions the claim in a single line, "Jack Devereux of Kilmore Quay, who died in 1998, is said to have been the last speaker of Yola.". This piece of information is completely unsourced in the article and in my opinion is not a well sourced edit as we don't know who said it, why they said it, or what source they might have had themselves to claim such. It is a fully spurious claim.

In response to this I replaced this edit with an extinction date of the late 19th century, for which I provided 2 sources (source 1: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513442?typeAccessWorkflow=login , source 2: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25502621). The first source was published the 31st of December 1927 and states on its first page the following; "Mr Hore, one of the last speakers of the dialect, died in 1879". Granted this is quite short, but firstly it's written by a prominent researcher of Yola, Kathleen Browne, who is mentioned by name in the wikipedia page and whose work forms the basis for other information included in the page.

However, I also have my second source, which is seemingly written by the same Mr Hore mentioned in the 1st source as a speaker of Yola during what appear to have been it's last generations. This 2nd source is dated to 1862 and states in Hore's words; "...for if the use of this old tongue dies out as fast for the next five-and-twenty years as it has for the same bygone period, it will be utterly extinct and forgotten before the present century shall have closed".

As you can see this is not original research. I have merely used sources available to me that have provided information in other parts of the article (the letter to the earl of Mulgrave comes from Hore's article). However it would seem Treetoes023 does not like this and would like a direct source refuting his specific claim. This is obviously quite absurd due to the issue of this being a sporadic source, no academic has debunked this claim simply because it's not notable enough to, making it a logical fallacy, specifically proving a negative. He places the burden on others to disprove his sourcing specifically rather than defending it with additional information himself.

I think an ideal solution going forward would be to lock or restrict who can edit the Yola language page so as to end the brigade of poor quality edits against it.

Any further information can be found in the talk page for Yola as well as in the justification for my own personal edits to the page. If you would like any additional sourcing for my claims I can provide it. Thank you and apologies for the length.

Yola language discussion

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


Zeroth statement by moderator (Yola)

Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to follow it. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If you wish to discuss content here (and this noticeboard is for discussing content issues), please state briefly what part of the article you want changed, or what part of the article you want left the same that another editor wants to change.

If you and another editor disagree about the reliability of a source, please identify the source, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Yola)

@Robert McClenon: I agree to follow DRN Rule A. I want the article to be reverted to this revision until a consensus forms on the reliability of Jack Devereux being the last native speaker of Yola with reliable sources supporting or refuting the claim. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Yola)

@Robert McClenon: I agree to follow DRN Rule A. I want the article to not be reverted and for it to remain in its current form with the extinction date of circa late 19th century. There are currently four references for the 19th century extinction date including two reputable academic sources (of which a random, unsourced Irish Independent Article is neither) and not a single decent source describing Jack Devereux as a native speaker. Unless contemporary writers and modern scholars about the Forth and Bargy dialect (Yola) are all incorrect (including Raymond Hickey, the current leading researcher of the English language in Ireland), then there is no reason for the page to show this spurious date of 1998.Moling Luachra (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Moling Luachra: I have a reliable source, it's just the book is not available at the moment for me to find the page number. The British Library's website has been down since October 28, 2023, over a whole month, and until it's back up I can't get the book to find the page number. The Irish Independent article cites the book anyway, so I don't see why it can't be used. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The Irish Independent article does not cite the book, the article is describing the book and the young man who published it and this spurious date comes from a bit of context added for readers. You might want to read the article here: https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/fascinating-book-on-yola-dialect-of-forth-and-bargy/39143296.html
The quote is
Elsewhere, Jack Devereux of Kilmore Quay, who died in 1998, is said to have been the last speaker of Yola. Jack was a member of the Kilmore Carol singers - some of the carols are sung in the Yola dialect.
The source the article provides is that 'some people said it', insufficient. And where is the word 'native speaker' mentioned?
Even if this article were to be taken as a good source (which it is not) and even if this amateur glossary did state that Jack Devereux was a native speaker and the last one, does that mean that the reputable academic sources cited elsewhere are incorrect?
Again, unless you're going to tell me one of the foremost scholars on the topic of the history of English in Ireland (and specifically in Leinster!) is wrong (and he was certainly aware of Devereux) and a scholarly source from much closer to the actual time period where it should have still been spoken if Devereux was the last is also wrong, then you're going to need good evidence; not just a sourceless newspaper article or an amateur glossary. Moling Luachra (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Yola)

One point of disagreement is the date that the language became extinct. Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement on when they think that the language became extinct? Are there any other content issues about the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the language was functionally extinct by the late 19th century. This is evidenced by contemporary writers commenting on the decline during this period (Browne 1921 and Hore 1862) as well as academic research concretely describing the dialect as having died out during the 19th century with only rememberers and fragments remaining by the 20th century (Hogan 1927 and Hickey 2023). This offhand comment in the Irish Times article describing Jack Devereux as 'the last speaker' is clearly a misunderstanding as although Devereux was interested in Yola and collected Yola words, phrases and songs in his life, he was not a native speaker and by no means was he the last person with knowledge of Yola language. All reputable sources describe Jack as such (Ó Muirithe 1996 and Hickey 2023). It is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Yola language was functionally extinct around the late 19th century and an offhand comment in an unreputable non-academic source is not nearly enough to refute this. Furthermore, the article does not cite any source for this claim of 1998 extinction other than 'it is said' and even if this claim is repeated in the amateur glossary (Santschi-Cooney 2019), that would not explain the mountain of evidence against it. I see no reason for the page to be reverted nor any reason that this random article be taken seriously. Moling Luachra (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Moling Luachra: I withdraw my support for Jack Devereux being the last native speaker, now that reliable sources that directly refute Jack Devereux being a native speaker have been provided, I have no reason to advocate for the source stating Jack Devereux was the last native speaker. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Yola)

Second statement by moderator (Yola)

It appears that there is now agreement that the language became functionally extinct by the late nineteenth century. If that is correct, we can close this case as resolved. Is it correct that we are now in agreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Yola)

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.

Horst Wessel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I made two pertinent edits to the Horst Wessel page, one factual (accepted); a second, contextual, which was rejected, apparently by an AI protocol, but who knows, really... which led me to open the Horst Wessel discussion page. There, I became witness to an ongoing exchange between the (I don't know what kind of) editor and another fellow user whose edit(s) was/were also being rejected, and I noticed that the following day, the editor had actually frozen the page. Who does that? The editor was being challenged by the user for biased handling, and the editor was exhibiting none of the expected traits such as willingness to entertain other opinions, professionalism, maturity-- you name it, s/he lacks it. Please review the dispute yourself. The cherry on the cake was his/her comment to the effect of "no Nazi deserves to be given an objective account." This "editor" needs to be pulled and replaced by someone without a modicum of propriety and sense. This is an editor who would think it outrageous if someone pointed out that language like "far-right", if fine for one political side, should require balancing by calling the other side (Communists) "far-left". (Maybe someone made that comment. Someone should have.) Of course, Wiki is known for its leftist bias, we all expect it, but there needs to be a line drawn that disallows self-righteous, self-entitled editors from using Wiki in this manner. It is NOT okay.

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

Horst Wessel Wikipage discussion in the last four weeks

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Pull the editor.

Summary of dispute by Editor

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

Summary of dispute by User

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

Horst Wessel 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.

Battle of Hussainiwala

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute if the Battle of Hussainiwala should be classified as a Pakistani victory when the Pakistan army successfully captured it during the 1971 war.

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

Talk: Battle of Hussainiwala

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By hearing both sides, and observing every single point and context. Then to hopefully solve the dispute.

Summary of dispute by Aman Kumar Goel

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

Summary of dispute by MrGreen1163

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

Battle of Hussainiwala 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.

shungite

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article was poorly written as it contradicted itself. It was also poorly sourced, citing sources such as "Gizmodo". The image did not correctly represent Shungite - it had a small shungite rock in front of a large unknown boulder. The largest error was that it said that "Shungite has trace amounts of fullerenes" and this is incorrect. To replace that statement, I cited an article in PubMed. These were the only changes made, and they were discussed in the talk page prior. Editor MikeNorton reverted it (it was hours of work) with the only revision explanation as, "please discuss on the talk page before editing". He had no comments on the talk page. Please note, it appears that we are heading to a revision war, which I'm not going to participate in. My article is encyclopedic as is, his can be quickly discredited by anyone knowledgeable about this subject.

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shungite,https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shungite&action=edit&section=11

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help me understand why my articles are being reverted. The other author does not participate in discussions, he just reverts.

Summary of dispute by MikeNorton

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

shungite discussion

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

A number of editors have reverted MelroseReporter's edits on Shungite. This dispute resolution is basically forum-shopping. The article has been reverted to the point before MelroseReporter edited it, and MelroseReporter has been instructed to propose changes on talk and to gain consensus before changes are made. There is no requirement for dispute resolution here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's worth plainly stating that their assertion that Mikenorton has only reverted without explanation is incorrect—they have offered numerous attempts to discuss the details of the issue on the page, either initiating or replying. They have largely been talked past, in my view. Remsense留 14:22, 9 December 2023 (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.

Bangladesh Genocide

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There has been consistent vandalism attempts in changing the history on the [page] to show one minority as the sole victim of a war. This is a comparison on all the edits made after June 2024 by Nomian and A.Musketeer which has repeatedly added claims and sources that puts the "Bengali Minority Hindu" as the focal point of this article. Persecution of the Bengali population happened irrespective of their race, creed, religion, but the users are constantly trying to insert articles and resources that aren't reliable while removing important sources, citations, articles.

Added this as part of Bengali Hindu Genocide Series Removed that this is part of the history of Bangladesh Added the targets by the perpetrators as only Bengali Hindus Removed the targets by the perpetrators as Bengali Intellectuals and Bengali Civilians Added 'Bengali Hindu Women' to the rape allegations instead of 'Bengali Women' + more

There have been 4 different discussions by different users over this issue where the majority agreed that this was an attempt of vandalism. I myself have consulted these users over and over again. But they are claiming that I am removing resources by reverting back to changes that have been made. The users have also vandalized several other pages related to the history of Bangladesh as a whole (including vandalizing the page Rape During The Bangladesh Liberation War). Please look into the discussions for more details.

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

Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Organized_vandalism_by_far-rights_from_India Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Primarily_Bengali_Hindus_as_target? Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Disruptive_edits_by_Lionel_Messi_Lover Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Consensus_on_reverting_all_vandalized_changes_after_June_04,_2023

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Restore the article to a Neutral POV, remove the users from editing articles, reverting changes.

Summary of dispute by Lionel Messi Lover

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

Summary of dispute by Malerisch

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

Summary of dispute by MrMkG

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

Summary of dispute by A.Musketeer

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

Summary of dispute by Nomian

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

Bangladesh Genocide 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.

Republic of China (Taiwan)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Sir/Ma'am,

It was related the nationality of this individual: "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim". According to the official link from “https://english.president.gov.tw/”, the nationality of this individual should use " Republic of China", instead of " Taiwan". However, the user Cat12zu3, Butterdiplomat, Mdaniels5757 kept referring to the naming convention rule and this link "WP:COMMONNAME". I checked this link "WP:COMMONNAME" thoroughly and I did not find any information related to "Taiwan" and "ROC". In this case, I am using the official name of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for this individual to reflect my action of using the correct and right information by using an official country’s name to represent the nationality of a citizen from that country.

Continuously, I received the warning about “unconstructive” and "disruptive editing", even though "subtle vandalism". I confused my action to provide the correct and right information by following the official name of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" from this link “https://english.president.gov.tw/”.

Thanks for your help in advance.

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

[[1]] [[2]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please let me know if there is a official policy existed in Wiki Oversight or Wikipedia Foundation for stating all English version Wiki pages that should use “Taiwan” to replace “the Republic of China”, even thought with the link "WP:COMMONNAME" ???

Summary of dispute by Cat12zu3

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

Summary of dispute by Butterdiplomat

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

Summary of dispute by Mdaniels5757

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

Republic of China (Taiwan) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The relevant policy is at WP:COMMONNAME, as you've linked. You may not ignore the sitewide consensus here—when referring to the country in its present iteration, including as a nationality, the name is "Taiwan", an exception here is not warranted. Wikipedia does not operate based on the official policies or guidelines of any country, neither the ROC nor PRC. For China-specific policy, take a look at MOS:ZH. (This ticket should probably be closed, as it is about a specific singular point of misunderstanding regarding policy.) Remsense留 00:54, 12 December 2023 (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.

Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article should have an overview of the seven individuals who have accused Jackson of sexual abuse: Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, Terence "Terry" George, Wade Robson, James Safechuck. All of the foregoing 7 have accused him in court filings or testimony, with the exception of Terry George who told ABC News in a 2005 intwrview that Jackson engaged in sexual abuse over the phone to him. Users keep deleting

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

Talk:Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Not sure but every time I add "seven individuals" I get reverted.

Summary of dispute by Bhdshoes2; Mr Boar1

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

Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson 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.

Arcane (TV series)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Only four reviews used for generalization of content in the lead, allegedly containing the following info: "Arcane's first season was released to widespread acclaim, with praise directed at its animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting."

Only four sources, two of which is unreliable (WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED), for this claim: "Many publications noted that the series has been highlighted as one of the greatest video game adaptations."

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

Talk:Arcane_(TV_series)#Unsourced_content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

3O was of almost no help. You can help by talking about the removal of unsourced/unreliable content and addition of new sources, so that this unnecessarily protracted and stagnant discussion can end.

Summary of dispute by Hohum

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

Arcane (TV series) 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.

Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The crux of the issue hinges around two points. The first is the question of including polling and support for the amendment. The second is whether the section on the Mexico City Policy should be reduced or kept the same.

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

[3]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope a compromise can be made over the disagreements and/or clarification by uninvolved parties as to what is the best way to settle the dispute.

Summary of dispute by 3Kingdoms

I believe that there is enough support to include a Marist poll about American views on the funding of abortion overseas for the article. Besides the Helms Amendment being the governing policy as it relates to the polling in question, reliable sources have also mentioned the polling in the context of the amendment or vice versa [4], [5], [6]. Also, I believe a section on groups that support the amendment should be included along with.

Regarding the Mexico City Policy, while I do believe it should be mentioned in the see also section and maybe a brief mention in the article, I do not believe that a full summary of the policy's history and how each administration since Reagan enacted or rescinded it needs to be included. Helms is a separate policy than the MCP. Also, the current opening line for the MCP part "While the Helms Amendment put a stop to the efforts of USAID and similar organizations to promote safe abortion overseas, it did not satisfy some anti-abortion activists." To my mind violate NPOV and should be removed or at least reworded.

Summary of dispute by Wes sideman

I'm in favor of including information about the Helms Amendment that is included in reliable sources that discuss the Amendment in depth. There are numerous reliable secondary sources that discuss the relationship between the Amendment and the Mexico City policy: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].... the list could go on forever if I wanted to copy-paste for a few more days.

In contrast, sourcing linking a single Marist poll 2 years ago, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus (a strongly anti-abortion organization), to the Helms Amendment is extremely weak. The Forbes source mentions the Marist poll in passing, once. The 2nd source is an article from the Catholic News Service, on its face not a reliable secondary source, obviously, and besides, mentions the Helms Amendment once, in passing. The third source, a Deseret News article (newspaper owned by the LDS Church) is an article about a completely different piece of legislation, the Hyde Amendment. It mentions the Helms Amendment briefly, and later, with no connection between the two, mentions the Marist poll once. It feels like a WP:COATRACK situation to crowbar a Marist poll commissioned by an anti-abortion religious org into an article with good reliable secondary sourcing on everything else. Wes sideman (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act discussion

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


First statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the rules covering disputes over a contentious topic. Please be aware of the ArbCom decision on abortion, which finds that abortion, broadly construed, is a contentious topic, and disruptive editing is subject to special sanctions. Do not ask me for expertise about the Helms Amendment or the Mexico City policy. It is the responsibility of the disputing parties to provide the moderator with any necessary information, just as it is the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to provide readers with information. Please acknowledge that you understand and will comply with the rules.

The purpose of conflict resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, because that is the purpose of all editing of the encyclopedia. So please start by making a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement as to what you think should be changed in the article, or what you think should be left the same that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

  • I'm an interested party in this dispute. I've re-read rule set D and agree to follow it. Based on what I know now, I'd prefer to trim the Mexico City Policy content (to something about a paragraph long, and not in it's own section) and continue to exclude the poll content. I'm open to changing my mind based on further evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I understand and will comply with the rules. I believe the change should be as follows: First a separate section called support that reads along the lines of "The Amendment is supported by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List" Followed by: Polling has shown around 75% of American oppose funding for abortion overseas. For the Mexico City Policy, I say as a compromise it reads: "Some anti-abortion activists felt that the Amendment did not go far enough which led to the creation of the Mexico City Policy in 1984 which prohibits federal funding to NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."3Kingdoms (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The long-stable version of the article included sourced paragraphs about the Mexico City policy and its relationship to the Helms Amendment. I added some sourcing to that and some minor touch-ups, and believe that section is fine as is. The Marist poll is one of countless polls about abortion in the USA, it was commissioned by a pro-life organization, and to cherry-pick that one poll, with only the most tenuous of connections to the subject of the article, reeks of POV-pushing, in my opinion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


Second statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

It appears that there are two issues. The first is whether to leave the current language about the Mexico City policy as is, or to trim it down. The editors who want to trim it down may also want to remove the section heading. The second issue appears to be whether to include or exclude the Marist poll. Will each editor please state, briefly, what they think should be in the article about the Mexico City policy? A compromise may be possible, and is desirable if possible. Will each editor please state whether they think that the Marist poll should be included? The issue of the poll appears to be a yes-no question, but if anyone has a compromise idea, please state it. If there are any other issues, please state them, concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I think we should mention that the Mexico City policy was an expansion of the Helms Amendment restrictions, briefly describe the policy's effects, and briefly summarize its history across the following presidential administrations. I still think this can be about a paragraph long. I don't think we should include the Marist poll, and I don't have a compromise idea. I would change my mind if there were more reliable sources mainly about the Helms Amendment that draw a connection between it and the poll; so far I think only the Forbes piece makes the cut. I don't believe there are other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


Third statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

User:Avatar317 - I will add you to the list of editors.

At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Mexico City policy, but rather agreement that coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down. If anyone disagrees, please say so.

At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Marist poll, but rather agreement to leave it out. If anyone disagrees, please say so.

Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


Third statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I still disagree about the exclusion of the Marist Polling due to the it being rated one of the best polling sites. The objections about the Knight of Columbus sponsoring the poll I do not find convincing. The Guttmacher institute is pro-abortion but is used as a source. I do not see why a poll from a highly rated place should be disregarded because it was sponsored by a group that is anti-abortion. The other objection about a lack of connection I understand, but still unconvinced by. If the poll is excluded I still think a small section in support for the helm amendment from the Catholic Church, the Knights, and anti-abortion groups is worth having.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The main reason for excluding the poll is that there isn't significant coverage from reliable sources connecting the poll to the Helms Amendment. Wes sideman (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. One source comes from Forbes Staff the other from Desert news which are both listed as a reliable source. America is not listed but is generally regarded as reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There are countless sources that report on polls about abortion, and some of them mention the Helms Amendment. If we mentioned every single poll that exists in an article that mention the Helms Amendment, the article would be 200,000 words very quickly. Wes sideman (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
At least three reliable sources mention this poll giving it notability. Along with the fact that Marist is highly rated for polling. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There appears to be agreement that the coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down.

There appears to be disagreement about the Marist poll. I will ask those editors who oppose including the Marist poll to state whether they oppose it on grounds of reliability of the sources, as undue weight, or bias.

Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The only reason thing I can think of is deciding if the article should include a section mentioning organizations that support the amendment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I oppose including the poll based on non-reliability of the poll. (Undue weight for ONE poll paid for by a non-neutral organization.) "Marist surveyed 1,004 adults Jan. 4-9 via landline or mobile numbers and interviewed respondents by telephone using live interviewers". - The two sources which mention this poll, qualify it by who paid for it. (Forbes qualifies it even more: "A majority of Americans are broadly supportive of abortion rights, but a Marist poll conducted in January for the Knights of Columbus—which is opposed to abortion..." as if it is a strange exception.) It doesn't even seem to be available on the website of Marist, only on the KofC's site (who paid for the poll). As I said earlier, abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded, and in this case, maybe who they ask. How many educated people answer phone polls when an unidentified number shows up on caller ID? (Support for abortion is well documented to be higher among more educated people.) ---Avatar317(talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
No back-and-forth except in the section for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand the point, but feel that Marist's respected status as a polling group justifies it Pollster Ratings - Marist College | FiveThirtyEight Anyway cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
So just a very quick search without more investigation finds this 2021 opinion piece by a reproductive rights organization which cites a poll which directly contradicts the Marist poll: "Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans support funding global health programs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, abortion included. The same poll showed a majority of Americans want to repeal Helms." We could do more searching for polls, but I predict the results will be wildly inconsistent, especially if the polls are funded by pro/anti groups, rather than neutral organizations. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The link to the polling for the article did not work for me. Is it the polling referred to in this article? Jayapal’s claim that ‘the majority of the country’ supports federal funding of abortion - The Washington Post 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, the link didn't work for me either, so I couldn't investigate that poll. Thanks for finding the WaPo story, though! It supports what I was saying: We’re often wary of polls commissioned by advocacy groups. In this case, Jayapal is relying on a poll done for a group that wants more public funding of abortions. The outcome of polls often depends greatly on the framing of questions. ---Avatar317(talk) 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

  • I'm not sure if the Marist poll issue is resolved, but I haven't changed my mind. It seems like the only other pending issues are
    1. working out exactly what the trimmed Mexico City Policy content would look like
    2. deciding whether there should be a support section
    . I don't think there's a draft proposal on the table for either, so it's hard for me to weigh in. I'd be equally fine with reviewing proposals here or through normal talk page discussion or editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    2 - I oppose a support section withOUT an opposition section, and if we have that, both should be sourced to INDEPENDENT/Neutral Sources, not the Catholic News service.
    3 - I'm ok with continuing this discussion on the Talk page. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    I have no objection to an opposition section. I do not agree about the sourcing. In my experience CNA gives reliable information even if wording is done from a Catholic viewpoint. Furthermore, it is independent of the USCCB. If Guttmacher is used as a source I do not see a reason to oppose this one. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    That is oversimplifying of sources. Guttmacher would not be a good source for who supports and opposes the Helms Amendment, (and I don't think they publish that type of content) just like CNA is not a good source because CNA would give greater coverage to Catholics and their viewpoint rather than Evangelicals for example; for supporters/opponents we should stick to mainstream news sources.
    Guttmacher is highly respected and cited by both sides of the abortion debate for their DATA and statistics about abortions (number, demographics, etc.) so they are a Reliable Source for any of that type of content. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
    I understand what you’re saying, but wiki also does not object to a source just because they have a bias. Given that this would only be one sentence I think including the CNA source is fine. If it was being cited across much of the article I agreed it would seem overused. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

There seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. You may use the section for back-and-forth discussion to work out a trimmed version.

If there continues to be disagreement about the Marist poll, an RFC may be in order. Does anyone want to propose an alternative resolution?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The only remaining one is the question of including a support section alongside the opposition one. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

  • I do think we're in rough agreement on the Mexico City Policy, and I bet we can work out the specifics without further moderated discussion. For the poll, I would prefer not to have an RfC, and I'd hope to see advocates of inclusion see that it's not been gathering steam as uninvolved voices joined in and maybe just drop it. It does seem like there's one additional content concern, about the inclusion of a support section. The proposed content is pretty short. If it's to be about that length, I'd rather change the "Opposition" section to "Support and opposition" and include the short addition at the beginning. "supported by the Catholic Church" is not quite supported by the source, but "supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" would be fine. I don't have concerns about the usability of CNA for a short summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
    While I still believe the poll should be included I do agree that I am in the minority and have not gotten addition support. I lean to RFC just to hear from other editors, but if not I understand. Agree about one section of support and opposition. Also agree with changing Catholic Church to USCCB. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


Sixth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House.

There seems to be agreement to add a Support section before the Opposition section.

We don't have to have agreement to have an RFC on the Marist poll. An RFC is used to obtain community rough consensus when there isn't agreement. Is there agreement to include the poll? Is there agreement to exclude the poll? If one editor wants an RFC, we can have an RFC. What if anything is there agreement on, about the poll?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

  • I believe that we do not yet have agreement on a Support section. I had proposed having one section called "Support and opposition", since the proposed content about support is so brief. It looks like 3K agreed with that proposal, but the other parties have not weighed in on that issue specifically. 3K and I are also in agreement about what the support content should say and that the proposed source is reliable enough. A317's fourth statement suggests that they would oppose the proposed support content. I acknowledge the point about an RfC being warranted even if just one editor wants it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


Seventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House.

It appears that there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, but I want to verify that. Will each participant please state what their opinion is on including the Marist poll?

It appears that there is disagreement about either a separate Support section or redesignating the Opposition section as Support and Opposition. Will each participant please state what their position is on identifying Supporters?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


Seventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I believe the Marist Poll is worth including and support having a combined "Support and Opposition" section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything new to say about the Marist poll; I'm still opposed. I favor a Support and opposition section that includes at least one sentence on support from the USCCB and anti-abortion orgs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of the Marist poll. Support small combined "Support and Opposition" section. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


Eighth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House.

An RFC is needed on whether to include the Marist poll.

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be used.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

Ninth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House.

I have drafted an RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published?

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ninth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

Unless I'm misinterpreting the eight statements, I think all active participants prefer a combined Support+opposition section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer we not hold an RfC at all. If we do, I think a more focused opening question would be better. The most recent summary of the poll looked like "A 2022 Marist Poll sponsored by the Knights of Columbus found that 73% of Americans and 59% who identify as "pro-choice" oppose or strongly oppose the funding of abortions overseas." I would prefer a yes/no on that text rather than something more open-ended. If it's to remain open-ended, I don't think "restrictions on abortion and opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion" is specific enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I support either a single Support+Opposition section, or two separate sections (though I believe they will be very small and therefore better as one section). The RfC would be better as: should specific sentence X be in the article, sourced to Y sources? Otherwise "in the article" could mean "in the See Also section" - I like Firefangledfeathers's suggested sentence for the RfC, though I would modify it to read: ..."oppose or strongly oppose the funding of abortions overseas with US tax dollars."---Avatar317(talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. Does one of the editors want to develop the trimmed-down version, either in the article (for which I will give permission), or in a sandbox?

User:Firefangledfeathers - You say that you would prefer that we not hold an RFC. If there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, how do you want to deal with the disagreement?

A second version of the RFC on the Marist poll can be developed, which does not try to summarize what the poll found, but only asks whether to refer to the poll. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published?

Are all of the editors agreeable to a single Support and Opposition section?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I love a good RfC, but it's an expensive use of community time. This DRN discussion has itself been costly. Since we're approaching—I think—a compromise in which each party gets some of what they want, I would be much happier for everyone to drop their sticks and walk away with at least half a smile on.

If there is to be an RfC, my order of preferences would be:

  1. A yes/no on specific text, something like A317's tweak of 3K's language, as written in their ninth statement.
  2. A yes/no on mentioning the poll, with no language specified, as proposed in the moderator's tenth statement
  3. The current draft RfC at the article talk subpage

About the Support+opposition section, I stand by my ninth statement and don't see that anything has changed.

I could take a stab at the Mexico City content, but it'd probably be about 3-5 days from now. I'd trust any of the participants to get it mostly right, if someone can do it sooner. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

While I believe it should be included, if people think an RFC will cost too much, I'll accept it not happening and agree with Firefangledfeathers belief we all walk away with at least something. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


Eleventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There is agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy. That can be done by editing the existing current article. There seems to be agreement on a single Support and Opposition section. That can be done by editing the existing article.

Rule D5 is suspended to allow editing of the section on the Mexico City policy and the Support and Opposition section.

I have reworked the RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Are there any comments about the RFC? If participants feel that the RFC is not necessary, what should we agree is the rough consensus? (It is true that an RFC uses community time. The premature closure of a DRN without reaching agreement, but with the mistaken assumption that there has been agreement, is likely to use more community time in the long run.) I do not plan to close this DRN without either agreement on the Marist poll. or an RFC on the Marist poll.

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

RFC looks fine to me. Agree about Mexico City Policy. I am fine either way with support and opposition.


Twelfth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There is agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy. That can be done by editing the existing current article. There is agreement on a single Support and Opposition section. That can be done by editing the existing article.

Rule D5 remains suspended to allow editing of the section on the Mexico City policy and the Support and Opposition section.

The RFC has been published, and will run for thirty days.

I will close this dispute within 48 hours unless there are any new issues raised. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Twelfth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

Back-and-forth discussion (Helms Amendment)

I don't know the procedure for editors to offer opinions on DRN; this is my first post here.

I support trimming the "Mexico City Policy" section by concatenating the last three paragraphs into one saying something on the order of "Democratic presidential administrations have removed it, while Republican ones have re-instated it"; (the years and presidents can be seen in that article)...maybe including the small comment about Trump's expansion. It shouldn't be its own section.

Single poll should be excluded; doesn't sound like this is representative of true population's opinion based on the sources and who commissioned the poll. Abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded.---Avatar317(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I also support trimming the back-and-forth Democratic-to-Republican admins policy reversals into a single simple sentence. Was actually going to to do that myself, but then this discussion was launched, so I held off. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (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.

Kingdom of Georgia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Another user adds "Arabic" and "Persian" under "common languages" of the Kingdom of Georgia. This was done based only on information that bilingual Georgian-Arabic and Georgian-Persian had been minted. It is clear from one of the provided references that languages on coins showed Georgia's trade relations with neighbors. Another book is silent on this. There is no evidence provided anywhere that "Arabic" and "Persian" were common languages used in Georgia (e.g. I don't need to know English to use pound sterling, and Georgians don't need to know Arabic to use Arabic-inscription coins for Arabic trade partners). The other user disagrees and now attempting to redefine meaning of "common languages" field in infobox to include coins, which is misleading.

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Georgia#Common_languages

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide additional opinion on the purpose of "common languages" field in infobox. Provide additional opinion if language used on coins for trade partners is considered "common language" of kingdom, even if no indication is given how many locals actually know that language or not.

Kingdom of Georgia 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.

Zagwe dynasty

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

About Ethiopian history. Both the Kingdom of Aksum and the Ethiopian Empire have entries dedicated to their respective polities. The relatively obscure intermediate Zagwe polity is, however, simply called "Zagwe dynasty". First I moved the page to Zagwe Kingdom, which was reverted by another user, arguing that "Zagwe Kingdom" is not the commonly known denomination. I argue on the other hand that there is a difference between the ruling dynasty and the polity it rules over.

My first solution: two separate entries. One focuses more on the royal family ("Zagwe dynasty") and another ("Zagwe Kingdom") that discusses the polity. For example, I would drastically shorten the "Islam" section in the "Zagwe dynasty" entry while leaving it intact in the "Zagwe Kingdom" entry. On the other hand I would add a royal succession table to the "Zagwe dynasty" page. Alternatively there may also be just one entry titled "Zagwe Kingdom", focusing on the polity aspect. Calling it "Zagwe dynasty", I feel, would not do it justice. LeGabrie (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Talk:Zagwe_dynasty#Article_dedicated_to_the_entity

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Brief assessment of the situation

Summary of dispute by Socialwave597

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

I saw that without consensus or discussion, the article was renamed to "Zagwe Kingdom", LeGabrie argued that the dynasty of this polity and the polity itself are two different entities and should have their own separate articles, however he then proceeds to change the name of the article to the "Zagwe Kingdom", a term which no academic source ever refers to the Zagwe as. This political entity is referred to as the "Zagwe Dynasty" by most reliable authorities such as Taddesse Tamrat[14], Haggai Erlich[15], Richard Pankhurst, etc. We need some sources explicitly calling this "Zagwe Kingdom" before changing the title to that name - otherwise that would be original research. There's plenty of sources calling this polity the "Zagwe Dynasty" so I don't see the need to change the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article must be titled the "Zagwe Dynasty". If we want to add content about the royal family of the Zagwe this is the article to do so. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Zagwe dynasty discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Robert McClenon: Done. LeGabrie (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Zagwe)

The other editor has not responded. If the other editor does not respond within 24 hours, I will have to close this case as declined. Continue discussion on the article talk page. However, the filing editor says that they want separate articles on Zagwe dynasty and Zagwe Kingdom, and there are articles on both Zagwe dynasty and Zagwe Kingdom, so maybe dispute resolution may not be required. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Zagwe)

First statement by possible moderator (Zagwe)

There seem to be two intertwined questions. The first is whether there should be one article, Zagwe dynasty, or two articles. The second is what the second article if any should be called.

Please read the Horn of Africa ruling by ArbCom and DRN Rule D. Please state whether you wish to take part in moderated discussion subject to that rule, and acknowledging that you are aware that the Horn of Africa region is a contentious topic. Then please answer the two questions listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Zagwe)

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.

John de Lancie

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

On the John de Lancie page, his role as Discord (from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic) in the lede was listed in the 2nd paragraph where it lists his "other television roles". I disagreed with this, due to his Discord role being easily his most popular and known role right beside his Q (from multiple Star Trek series) role. His other roles listed under "other television roles" were all much less well known/popular than his roles as Q & Discord. So I found it to make much more sense to list his Discord role alongside his Q role in the first paragraph as one of the two roles he is most well known for. So I edited the page to change this, but that edit was quickly reverted and deputed. (My edit can be found here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=John_de_Lancie&oldid=1188681811 , note that every contribution from the ip 67.60.186.104 on the article and talk page was mine before I made this account)

I started a thread on the matter on the article's talk page. I gave my argument there for my edit, and City of Silver responded. We had a brief back and forth where they stated that my edit would have violated the rule on no original editing. I gave a long response to them explaining my disagreement on that point, that they never directly responded to. Sergecross73 did give responses agreeing with me that my edit would not have violated the original research rule, and stated that the argument should be specifically about where it makes more sense to place the Discord role in the lede. Despite this initial good discussion, there haven't been responses since and no clear consensus on this matter has developed.

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

[16] Here is where that discussion was. I stand by all of the arguments I gave there, and would be interested in hearing responses to them (in particular to the long response I gave to City of Silver). Since no clear consensus has been developed on the matter, I would be interested in further discussing this matter with any of the people already involved in that discussion.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I also completely understand if those people are busy and why this minor edit dispute would not be their priority, so I also would be interested in other parties looking over the edit & discussion and stating their opinions on this. It would be good for me and others to able develop a consensus for or against my proposed edit, or even for a compromise edit if anybody has ideas for that. Thank you, I look forward to good discussion on this matter that can lead to an agreement.

Summary of dispute by FlightTime

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nothing more to say. I'll let the discussion on the talk page speak for itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Meters

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

This is a minor content dispute that the OP is not content to allow the talk page to settle. There has been zero other support for the OP's attempt to move mention of John de Lancie's voice role in a children's cartoon from the second paragraph of the lead (as part of a list of roles) into the first paragraph of the lead (as something the actor is "best known for"). As I said on the article's talk page the consensus seems to be that the voice role of Discord in My Little Pony cartoon does not warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead. I agree with not including it in the first paragraph. If there's no consensus for the challenged edit, it should stay out.

Note that since this was opened another editor, user:Slacker13, has commented on the article's talk page, and is also against the OP's proposed change. Meters (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Daniel Case

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

Summary of dispute by Dennis Brown

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

This doesn't belong here and is outside the scope of the board. There is a consensus on the talk page, this one user is trying to take a second bite at the apple. Please close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

I'm just an uninvolved admin who has been trying to guide discussions in the right direction. We've got an newbie editor who is still learning, and experienced editors giving pretty lackluster, lazy responses that aren't exactly helping. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, my frustration is that most editors have spent more time pointing to a consensus that hasn't really been built yet, or on tangents about OR, when they should be commenting on building an actual consensus. And because the dispute is strictly subjective, all it would take is a simple "I disagree, I don't find it important enough to change because of ____." But no one can seem to muster that up, or if they do, it's lost in a wall of text of tangents, and so this drags on. If it wasn't such a trivial dispute, I'd recommend an RFC to muster up some participants that give some actual input. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by City of Silver

This is a bit frustrating. I have to give a long, detailed answer so I won't be (apparently) accused of being "lazy" but what if I don't have a long, detailed answer? Because I very much do not want to come off like I'm dismissing the formidable amount of work EpicTiger87 has done, and because Sergecross87 has (apparently) described my efforts at being concise and short-winded with what I believe is an unfair little attack, I'll go on and on as best as I can.

I believe a performer who regularly works as both an on-camera and a voice actor can usually not have a voice performance be considered one of their most recognizable. There are exceptions but I really don't believe John de Lancie is one. I wasn't convinced by EpicTiger87's arguments, all of which I read and considered more than once and all of which I concluded are not compliant with our policy that says we cannot source article text to original research. There's an argument to be made that EpicTiger87 has kinda/sorta claimed that OR is to some extent not in play here, or can be overridden. I still believe it entirely governs this dispute.

John de Lancie's most famous work is as Q, a recurring character from several Star Trek franchise shows. Nobody is disputing that. While I believe that nothing he's done has been anywhere near as significant as Q, I believe his second-most famous performance came in a four-episode arc of the prestige TV drama Breaking Bad, where he played a vital character in a storyline whose twist is, arguably, the most shocking in American television history. That's my opinion and if article content is not affected by it, that's fine. This is also me saying quite literally nothing about de Lancie's work on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. By all accounts it's some of the finest, most beloved voice acting in its part of our popular culture. (Does it matter that, while I was discussing this on there, I actually tracked down and watched several clips from it of de Lancie's performances? Before this I'd never seen a single second of that show.)

Whether or not we should be here, here we are so why don't we get closure from an uninvolved mediator? While I strongly dispute Sergecross73's (apparent) criticism of my participation, I agree that not everyone has done a great job plainly stating where they stand. City of Silver 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I appreciate the response. To briefly respond to your points here on popularity, my position is that while Q is clearly less popular overall compared to Discord, Discord's popularity is significantly higher than and closer to Q's than the minor roles listed. Therefore, top billing alongside Q is more accurate than lumping him in with more minor roles. I still strongly disagree on the idea that is Breaking Bad performance is anywhere close to as popular as Discord. His Breaking Bad character was still a minor one in contrast to being famous & memorable consistently recurring characters in their shows like Discord & Q. I'm willing to bet most Breaking Bad fans think of Donald Margolis as just "Jane's Dad" who had a great minor performance but would not think much of them beyond that. While most MLP fans probably consider Discord one of the star characters of that show and bring him up much more. And Discord being at least 15 times more searched according to Google Trends strongly suggests that my suspicions are correct about this.
I understand you disagree with the above and that's totally reasonable. Unless there is more you would like to add in response on that, I think we have both aired our perspectives there for others to judge. However, I have some clarifying questions about your stance on the original research issue. You have argued (correctly imo) in favor of Q remaining listed as de Lancie's best known role based on your intuition & evidence that can't actually be used as a source listed in the article. I have argued in favor of Discord being added to that sentence, also based on my intuition & evidence that can't actually be used as a source listed in the article. So I quite don't understand what your standard on the original research policy is. If my Discord edit would be violating original research policy, then I don't see how the current Q claim is not also violating that policy (let alone all of the other pages on actors that also list specific roles as being their "most well-known"). The standard you seem to be setting here is that claiming something as an actor's "most well-known role" is something that requires evidence from reliable sources, but I can't see any precedent for that being the case and it contradicts your defense of the Q claim. And if I granted that that standard is correct, then I would also have to consider the Q claim original research. EpicTiger87 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I tried my best. My first message here is not perfect, obviously, but I did what I could. In response to my effort to build consensus via policy and to disprove implications of laziness by being as detailed as I could, the same user who (apparently) attacked me for being lazy is now attacking me for (no apparently about this) going off on tangents about the policy that backs up what I'm saying, not building consensus when literally every message I've typed out states where I stand and why, and, uh, typing too much? I don't even know. Another response was the original poster making more arguments that I've repeatedly said I do not buy per a policy I now don't even feel fucking comfortable linking or mentioning any more.
Please keep that mention of Q where it is per WP:OBVIOUS, if not its letter than its spirit. I retract anything else contentious I've said and I think the article should be written however EpicTiger87 wants it. I have no faith that further contributions from me here will make a positive difference so I'm out. Again, I tried. City of Silver 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

John de Lancie discussion

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

Note: I was unable to deliver a notice to Daniel Case, as their talk page is semi-protected and I do not yet have the ability to edit semi-protected pages. If anyone here could deliver the notice to them, that would be great.EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Meters (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with City_of_silver. Moving the Discord info to the top is unnecessary and reads like a non-neutral marketing tactic. Separately from this, the article contains a significant amount of original/non-source verifiable and irrelevant information like: "In 1962, de Lancie performed in a high school production of William Shakespeare's Henry V." My inclination would be to significantly edit out all of the superfluous content. Slacker13 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I responded to this on the talk page here. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (de Lancie)

I am trying to determine whether moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A.

I will comment on one editor's statement. They said: here we are so why don't we get closure from an uninvolved mediator? If they are asking me to provide closure in the sense of making a binding decision, that is not the role of a mediator. If they are asking me to assist the editors in reaching compromise or in establishing consensus, I am willing to assist. The purpose of moderated discussion, or mediation, is to improve the encyclopedia article. So I am asking each editor whether they want to take part in moderated discussion, subject to the rules, and one more question. The question is: What part of the article do you want to change, or what part of the article do you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? I will open moderated discussion if at least two editors want it, and if they have different content objectives. (If the only editors who want to participate in moderated discussion have the same content objective, then I will close the discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (de Lancie)

I have throughly explained the edit I want to be made on both this discussion and the article talk page, which is to move the lede mention of his Discord role from his "other television roles" in the 2nd paragraph, to the first paragraph listed alongside the Q role. Here is the revision from when my edit was briefly up before it was reverted. I will be interested in taking part in a moderated discussion if anybody is interested. EpicTiger87 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, If any outsiders who have not participated in this discussion would like to talk about this, I would be more than happy to. EpicTiger87 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (de Lancie)

It appears that none of the other editors besides the filing editor are agreeing to moderated discussion. If anyone else wants to take part in moderated discussion, please answer the question stated above, about what you want to change in the article, or leave the same. It appears that this is a one-against-many issue, and that the filing editor wants to include a role in the lede paragraph that the other editors think is not sufficiently important for the lede. Is that correct? If so, there is at least rough consensus against the filing editor. The filing editor has two choices. The first is to initiate a Request for Comments. The second is to accept that they are in the minority.

I will close this case within 48 hours unless another editor requests moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (de Lancie)

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.

Ukrainian language

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

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.

Disagreement on whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Establish whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.

Summary of dispute by Rsk6400

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

Comment I'm not opposed to this kind of dispute resolution, but I'm not sure about this, because there were a lot of other participants involved in the discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary The question is not, whether the use of the name "Little Russian" by certain authors should be included, but whether it should be included without reference to good secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Austronesier

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

Ukrainian language discussion

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

I am still ready to try to mediate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, and reply whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to this set of rules, which include recognizing that the Ukrainian language is a contentious topic subject to the Arbitration Committee ruling on disputes about Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure has been provided in part to deal with battleground editing about world areas that have been historically real battlegrounds, or are current battlegrounds, and Ukraine is the area of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century. An editor has said that there have been other editors involved in this dispute. After discussion, we may either use a Request for Comments to involve other editors, or invite the other editors to take part in this discussion.

So I am asking whether at least two editors agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D and Eastern Europe contentious topic rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Yes, I think I understood the rules and am willing to take part. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to moderated discussion subject to the suggested set of rules. --Crash48 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I was not invited but I did participate in the above-mentioned previous discussion. I ask to be allowed to participate, and agree to the ground rules. Thank you. —Michael Z. 17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


First statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. It appears that one area of disagreement is whether to state that the language was sometimes called "Little Russian" in the past. Is that statement supported by a reliable source? If so, is there a reason of due weight or balance why it should not be mentioned?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mzajac will be added to the list of participants, and should answer the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Yes, the article should mention that the language has been called “Little Russian” at some times in some places, in a manner compliant with policies. But no, it certainly should not use the term, as it is pejorative language from a colonial legacy (and is currently used to support a violent campaign against Ukrainian nationhood). And as to the specific question at issue, the article should not just cite cherrypicked historical usages by Ukrainians in primary sources without context to imply something about the term’s acceptability. All discussion of the term should be composed with awareness of its context (including the meaning and implications of “Little Russia” and “Little Russian” [person], colonial relationships, and imperial censorship), avoid WP:SYNTH, and be used to provide information supported by recent reliable sources. And also note that the primary sources in question actually use several different terms, with different meanings, in different languages: malorusskoĭ litaraturě (“of Little-Russian literature”), malorossiĭsʹkym narichchiam (“in the Little-Russian dialect”), iazyka maloruskoho (“of the Little-Ruthenian language/tongue”), malorossiĭskago narěchiia (“of the Little-Russian dialect”), Malorossiĭskaia Eneida (“Little-Russian Aeneid”). —Michael Z. 06:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Question It seems to me that this edit[17] by Crash48 means that the mediation has failed, according to rule D, no. 5. Am I right ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit I want included in the article is [18]. Every statement added therein is attributed to a RS. Austronesier's statement at WP:ARC, although based on a slanderous premise misrepresenting a clearly attributed citation from Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute as my own OR, nevertheless confirmed Rublamb's earlier statement at Talk:Ukrainian language that citing primary sources is allowed as illustrative material for a conclusion which is itself cited from secondary sources.

As for other content issues: after I had filed this DR request, a new content dispute developed, unrelated to the mentions of Little Russian language. Rsk6400 insists on using the phrasing During the century after the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement, Kyiv and the parts of Ukraine east of the Dnipro river gradually lost their autonomy in favour of tighter control by Russia. An unsuspecting reader may infer from this phrasing that East Ukraine gradually lost autonomy after being incorporated into the Tsardom of Russia, while West Ukraine retained its pre-1654 autonomy for another century at least. The actual history is exactly the opposite: after the forceful polonisation precipitated the Khmelnytsky Uprising in 1648, East Ukraine broke away from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and enjoyed a short-lived autonomy under the Tsardom of Russia, while West Ukraine remained under Polish oppression, and couldn't attain autonomy until after the Great War. This is why I want to change the misleading sentence into The 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement divided Ukraine between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Tsardom of Russia. During the following century, both monarchies became increasingly intolerant of Ukrainian own cultural and political aspirations., which Rsk6400 opposes. --Crash48 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

I will not fail a moderation for an edit of the article so soon after I provided the rules, but I will restate that Rule D.5 states not to edit the article while discussion is in progress.

One editor calls for a use-mention distinction about the terminology "Little Russian". Is there agreement that this is the right approach? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

One editor has identified another content issue. If I understand correctly, what is agreed is that after 1654, Eastern Ukraine was part of the Tsardom of Russia, and Western Ukraine was under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The question of which state can be considered more autonomous is a national point of view. Is this disagreement about the wording of the Ukrainian language article, and where, or is it about the content of a different article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there any other content issues?

Second statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The proposed edit[19] demonstrates the dangers of “citing primary sources as illustrative material,” as at least one of the statements uses WP:OR to incorporate a misinterpretation of the primary source: “As late as 1845, the Ukrainian poet and philologist Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian.[1]” it says, but that is false. According to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine,[20] Vahylevych’s work is “his published Polish grammar of the ‘Little Ruthenian’ language in Galicia (1845).” The title is Grammatyka Jȩzyka Małoruskiego w Galicii (Polish) or Hrammatyka Iazyka Malorusʹkoho v Halytsïy (Ukrainian/Rusyn), meaning “of Little Ruthenia” or “of Little Rus,” and definitely not “of Little Russia” (which would be “Małorosyjskiego” or “Malorosiĭsʹkoho”). This is clearly supported by the Polish-language passages in the right-hand side of the referenced image file, where we can see distinct mentions of both Russia (Róssia/Россїѧ) and Ruthenia/Rus (Ruś/Рꙋ́сь).

I don’t think the other assumptions in the proposal about vocabulary use are any more reliable, and presenting the collection of unreliable factoids to imply a pattern and encourage particular conclusion is engaging in an insidious form of WP:SYNTH. Instead, we should say what RS say about the historical use of the terminology, directly supported by them.

Although the question of autonomy in the seventeenth century is not directly relevant to this dispute, the issue of the division of Ukraine between empires and the treatment of Ukrainians and Ukraine therein is. Most of the sources in question are from the period of the Ukrainian National Revival in the nineteenth century. In this period, Ukraine continued to be called Ruthenia (a Latinization of Rusʹ) in the Habsburg empire (including Red Ruthenia, Chervona Rusʹ, and Carpathian Ruthenia, Karpatsʹka Rusʹ), but was named “Little Russia,” Malorossiia, in the Russian empire. We must also make the distinction between the medieval and early Modern term Mala Rusʹ/Malaia Rusʹ, and the Russian-empire colonial term Malorossiia, which had a different connotation. A Ukrainians was called a rusyn or rusnak, but the Russian empire invented a new term, maloros.

The Russian labelling was a colonial imposition accompanied by bans on Ukrainian language and violent denial and suppression of Ukrainian identity in ways that did not occur elsewhere (see, e.g., all-Russian nation). The fact that Ukrainians who were subject to this colonization for generations used the colonial vocabulary (or rather that their publishers who wanted to stay in business did) should not be put forward without context and explanation to draw mistaken conclusions from. —Michael Z. 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contibutors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I request that we disregard other editors writing that I seem to agree to things that I did not write and do not agree with.  —Michael Z. 23:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Mzajac had already admitted that he didn't look at my edits before expressing his disapproval of them
That was two and a half months ago, and that is inaccurate. I was responding to statements about principles, not expressing anything about their edits, shortly after joining a very large discussion, and did review the details after that. There is no point in going to dispute resolution and then dredging up months-old personal complaints.
Mzajac seems to agree that the passage on autonomy in the 17th century isn't directly relevant to the subject of the article
I never wrote that and I don’t agree with that.
Please respond to the moderator and write about the subject and not about other editors.
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s disruptive and provocative to fabricate opinions for them. This dispute resolution appears to be going right off the rails. If it continues this way I will decline to keep dedicating time to it.

avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article
What does that mean? The division of Ukraine between empires and their respective treatment of it over the entire early Modern and Modern periods is extremely important to the subject. When Ukrainian language was banned in Russia, Ukrainians could travel to the Habsburg empire to publish their work in Ukrainian (e.g., look at Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s entire career). And when the Soviets conducted genocide, purges of Ukrainian cultural elites, and forcibly Russified the language in the 1930s, it was preserved in western Ukraine and then in the diaspora. This is a fundamental influence on the development of Ukrainian culture, literature, scientific knowledge, nationhood, and especially language. It’s one of the main narratives in every good history of Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 00:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contribtors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I still have two problems with Crash48's edit I mentioned above: 1) The edit is related to the question of "Little Russian" (Crash48 denied this, but it's about the necessary context for the use of "Little Russian".) 2) I want to know, if I can revert them. If not, they should self-revert, because a mediation doesn't make much sense if one party is exempt from the rules. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The rules were provided on 24/11. Rsk6400 reverted the article on 25/11, and wishes to do so again. The one party he wishes to be exempt from the rules is himself. Also characteristic of him, as I had already commented earlier, is that he's quite enthusiastic to discuss my conduct, and much less enthusiastic to discuss the article content, which in both of his statements so far has been disregarded entirely.

The use–mention distinction is totally irrelevant to the dispute at hand,

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

and Mzajac had already admitted that he didn't look at my edits before expressing his disapproval of them. None of my proposed (or past) edits ever used the term “Little Russian”.

The second content issue relates to the passage that Rsk6400 recently added into the Ukrainian language article, claiming that it is "necessary context" and a precondition for being able to mention the term "Little Russian language". Mzajac seems to agree that the passage on autonomy in the 17th century isn't directly relevant to the subject of the article, which is about the language and not about the nation; but I don't oppose addition of such a passage, so long as it isn't phrased misleadingly. My proposed phrasing avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article.

--Crash48 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ File:Ukrainian Language in Galicia 1845.jpg

Third statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

Let's start over. First, read DRN Rule D again. Rule D4 says, "Comment on content, not contributors". It then says, "Discuss edits, not editors". These two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Second, read the ArbCom ruling, as amended, on Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure is in place largely to control battleground editing about areas that are or have been real battlegrounds, and too much blood is being shed in Ukraine. Disruptive editing may be dealt with summarily at Arbitration Enforcement. Also, read the boomerang essay before asking the moderator to fail the moderated discussion. If the moderated discussion is failed, the next stop will probably be WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Try to avoid those conduct forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Third, there appear to be two content issues. The first has to do with the term "Little Russian". The second has to do with the subsection "Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary". We will discuss them separately, commenting on content, not contributors. I am neutral, but I will be active in trying to implement neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia.

Are we in agreement that the term "Little Russian" should be mentioned, but that it should also be noted that the term is considered pejorative, at least in modern times? Since the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, state exactly where you want to change what the article says, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Just tell what if anything you want to change in the article.

There are clearly two viewpoints about the history of the Ukrainian language in Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine, because there are two viewpoints on the history of Ukraine. There are two ways to deal with the conflicting points of view. The two options do not include selecting either of the two viewpoints. We should not make any statements comparing the autonomy of cultural development in the voice of Wikipedia. Either we can state that there are at least two viewpoints on the history of the Ukrainian language, and present both viewpoints as viewpoints, or we can cut down the Ukrainian history to a minimum to state only that the language developed with different influences in the two parts of the country.

What changes if any do the editors want to make concerning the phrase "Little Russian"? Which approach should be used concerning the disputed history subsection? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The term "Little Russian" became pejorative in the 20th century. We may mention that it is currently considered pejorative, but then we must also clarify that it was not considered pejorative at the time. There is no need to detail the reasons why the term became pejorative.

By way of example, the original name of And Then There Were None came to be seen as offensive in modern times; but nevertheless, the name features prominently in the article, appearing in bold in the lead paragraph, on the infobox cover, etc. The article includes a timeline of the name change, but does not explain any of the reasons why the original name became offensive, nor any description whatsoever of the African-American history.

This is exactly the approach I propose for the Ukrainian language article too. The suggestion that the history of Russian imperialism must be recounted in any article that mentions the term "Little Russian" is ridiculous and WP:UNDUE.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Mzajac: It's so ironic that you ask me to "respond to the moderator and write about the subject" after you ignored all of the moderator's questions yourself, and rambled on other topics... --

Crash48 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

Comment on content, not contributors.

Read Be Specific at DRN. This applies in particular to the phrase "Little Russian". Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section. Do you want to expand it to present different national points of view, or to trim it down to a minimum, or do you have a different proposal that maintains neutral point of view?

Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The moderator has no interest in trying to restore a stable version or status quo version of the article, and so is not interested in a chronology. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article going forward. A chronology is of no interest, and we will not be trying to restore the status quo. Either answer the questions, or withdraw from the mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Robert McClenon, it seems to me that there is a mistake. I think that you didn't notice that Crash48 made their problematic edit[21] more than 24 hours after they pledged to follow the rules, not (as you put it in your 2nd statement) "so soon after I provided the rules". The edit that was done soon after you provided the rules, was mine. And I only reverted to status quo. Also, I didn't comment on contributors, I asked a procedural question, in good faith. I don't see a reason to advise me to read the boomerang text. Finally, I didn't ask you to fail this mediation, but I asked you how to deal with the situation. As I see it, a possible continuation of this mediation demands that we return to status quo at the article.

To avoid further confusion, here's the chronology of relevant edits:

  1. 10:35, 22 November 2023 Crash48 starts this thread
  2. 22:20, 24 November 2023 (with a minor correction at 22:25, 24 November 2023) Crash48 changes Ukrainian language.
  3. 23:21, 24 November 2023 Robert McClenon makes the "Zeroth statement by possible moderator"
  4. 09:12, 25 November 2023‎ I revert to status quo at Ukrainian language
  5. 09:04, 28 November 2023 I pledge to follow the rules (0th statement)
  6. 16:58, 28 November 2023 Crash48 makes the same pledge
  7. 17:57, 29 November 2023‎ Crash48 makes the edit that I consider problematic. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The edit I want included in the article is [22] with the following statement added after ...Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian:

  • for practical reasons, as this term was more familiar to his intended readers.[23]

The added statement addresses two issues raised earlier at this DR. First, it confirms, based on a secondary RS, that Little Russian is the established rendition of małoruski into English, whereas *Little Ruthenia(n) is not a thing. Additionally, it disproves the unsourced claim that the term Little Russian was imposed on Ukrainian authors, or their publishers, by the Russian authorities. --Crash48 (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Brock 1972, quoted fully enough to demonstrate Brock’s translation of terms. Of course, ruski does not mean “Russian”:

At the outset of the unpublished treatise he explained, more fully than at any earlier date, the reasons for his using an unfamiliar term to define his native tongue. “I have called the language South Ruthenian,” he wrote, “instead of the more usual Little Russian (małoruski) or Ruthenian (ruski) . . . in order to avoid all misunderstanding; for the adjective Little Russian is too narrow, proper only to [Russian] Ukraine,’ whereas “Ruthenian” alone, although it might be convenient to employ the word by itself in Latin or German, appeared to him to be inappropriate in a Slavonic tongue. His temporary reversion in his published grammar of 1845 to the term “Little Russian” appears to have been dictated by practical considerations — its greater familiarity to his readers who might be put off, needlessly, by the less familiar usage.

The paper was published in an anthology, Nationbuilding and the Politics of Nationalism: Essays on Austrian Galicia,[24] where the index on p 333 actually lists it as “Little Ruthenian”/“Little Russian”, indicating that these are treated as synonyms. As I noted above, the more-specific term is also used in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine entry on Vahylevych written by Roman Senkus and in its internet version.[25]

Note that scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries often treated Ruthenian and Ukrainian as a variety of Russian, for example calling the Old East Slavic language “Old Russian.” This is no longer the case.

Anyway, sorry I don’t have the time to properly respond to the moderator’s questions. I am very busy in RL for the next week, but will monitor, and respond better if and when I can. —Michael Z. 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

There have been mistakes. My mistake may have been not making it sufficiently clear that I am not trying to determine what is the stable version or status quo version of the article. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article going forward, and I do not spend time on determining what previous changes were made when.

The mistakes by the editors include not addressing my questions about changes to article content. The mistakes by the editors also include continuing to complain about the other editor. I said to comment on content, not contributors; and I am not planning to try to determine what was the stable version.

If either editor thinks that it is important to restore a status quo version, or is not interested in following my rules (and I decide how to apply my rules), they can withdraw from moderated discussion, and I will fail moderated discussion, and I will recommend that someone report at least one of the editors to Arbitration Enforcement. You have been notified that this discussion is about a contentious topic, and that special procedures can be used. I don't think that either of you should want to go to Arbitration Enforcement. It will almost certainly result in some sanctions on someone, and then you won't have moderated discussion to try to resolve the content dispute.

So: Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where?

Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section.

Fifth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Regarding the name “Little Russian,” this comprehensive article on the language should explain all of the names applied to the subject, throughout its history, and their historical, geographical, political, and chronological context, and their connotations. And in different languages, including English, and modern and historical Ukrainian as well as names that were significant in many cases in Polish, Russian, Latin, and Greek languages. It can refer to them in the course of the “History” section, but there are so many historical and current names that it may be helpful to have a “Names” section to sort out the important ones.

It should make assertions referring to statements in RS, not implying them using examples.

It ultimately will need to have more nuance and detail than “‘LR’ is pejorative today but was not in the nineteenth century,” because this is a severe oversimplification. For one thing, the naming of the language is not just black and white, but a process that has continued throughout its history and across Ukraine and the world. This comprehensive article about the language also will need to refer to the many different original names that are ambiguously translated with more precision than has been deemed sufficient in some other contexts like broad history books or narrower articles. For example English “Little Russian” has been used to refer to Ukrainian/Rusyn “maloruskyi iazyk” which existed and is also called Little Ruthenian,[26] and also to “malorossiiska mova” which is not. For example, “Little Russia” in the Medieval and Early Modern periods (Mala(ia) Rus)was a completely different name from “Little Russia” in the imperial period (Malorossiia) or today.

For example, referring to sources, the above-mentioned article Boeck 2004[27] has a lot of important factual info, but while some of Brock’s opinions are important they are not academic consensus; see, for example, the direct critique of Boeck in Kravchenko 2022, The Ukrainian-Russian borderland: history versus geography, (p 40)and what it says about the chronology of the change in connotation (p 46). —Michael Z. 01:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

My fourth statement specified exactly what I want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where. It did not comment on any contributors, and I don't understand why it needed to be hatted.

My first statement specified my suggestion with respect to the history section. My second statement additionally clarified that my proposed phrasing avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article. This was not a comment on any contributors, and I don't understand why it needed to be hatted too. --Crash48 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that Vahylevych’s work <..> title is Grammatyka Jȩzyka Małoruskiego w Galicii (Polish) <...> meaning “of Little Ruthenia” or “of Little Rus,” and definitely not “of Little Russia” (which would be “Małorosyjskiego” or “Malorosiĭsʹkoho”), I want also to refer to the dictionary by Kosciuszko Foundation (New York, 1961) translating Little Russia as Małoruś, and Little Russian as Małorusin, małoruski, and not even listing Małorosja or małorosyjski as options. The assertion of a difference in meaning or connotation between these forms is unsourced OR. Between the two synonyms Little Russian and Little Ruthenian, the former is used orders of magnitude more frequently in English-language sources. WP:ESTABLISHED states that we should use the established English terminology, no matter what name is used by non-English sources. --Crash48 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Anything that is identified as important by secondary RS focussing on the history of Ukrainian language (or Ukraine) should be included. Primary sources should not be used here. The name LR was used by the imperial centre (i.e. Russia) in the context of Ukraine being a Russian colony in all but the name. This should be said in the part of the section covering the language history under Russian rule during the 18th and 19th centuries. For Ukrainian under Polish and (after 1772) Austrian rule the only thing important to me is that we stick to secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


Sixth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

One editor wants to add a Names section covering the history of names for the language, including the various forms of "Little Russian" in various languages. If there is agreement that there should be such a section, then the specific issue about "Little Russian" can be subsumed within an expansion of the article.

That would leave the one remaining previous issue that of the history section, which needs to be expanded, because there are different national points of view, and the article must provide a neutral point of view. This section should be expanded and rewritten.

Is there agreement that there should be a Names section?

If there is agreement that there should be a Names section, and that the history section should be rewritten for neutrality, then I will provide each editor with a sandbox workspace in which to work on the sections of the article that need work, and then we can compare them.

Are there any other content disputes? Are there any other questions?

Sixth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

I have no objections to creating a Names section. My own suggestion for the content of such a section would be identical to my suggested content for the paragraph starting Although the name of Ukraine... and ending ...(in 1878, by Mykhailo Drahomanov).

I do object to expanding on history of Ukraine in the article on its language, because History of Ukraine already exists as a separate article. I do also object to expanding on the use of terms Little Russia as toponym and Little Russian as demonym, because Little Russia and Little Russian identity already exist as separate articles. I pointed earlier to the example of a novel published under a title that later became offensive. The article on the novel states for a fact that the title became offensive, and doesn't go into any detail as to why. The detailed explanation of how the term developed its modern connotations appears in the separate article on that term.

The paragraph starting During the century after the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement... and ending ...long period of steady decline has nothing in it that is directly relevant to Ukrainian language, except for the statement The Russian centre adopted the name <...> Little Russian for the language, which is unreferenced, and likely misplaced: the earliest mention of Little Russan language known to Google Books dates from 1748, the very end of the time period being described. As an alternative to expanding the history section in order to include multiple national points of view, I suggest trimming it down to a minimum, keeping focus on just the language. --Crash48 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A section on the names can be created, but it doesn't have to. In any case, we should refrain from using primary sources.

Regarding the neutrality of the history section: I don't see different national views. I learned most of what I know about Ukrainian history from American and Swiss-Austrian authors who don't seem to share the POV of any of the nations involved (Polish, Ukrainian, Russian). Since the crucial point seems to be the "colonial" situation of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire, which I see as necessary context for the use of "Little Russian", I'd suggest to solve the problem of "Little Russian" (and, if you like, other names) first and then see whether history is still a problem. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


Seventh statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

If the editors agree, I will permit the editing of the article to develop a Names section. Alternatively, I can create a sandbox for each editor to develop a Names section and we can compare them. Is the preference of the editors for development of a Names section in the article, or for its development in sandboxes?

As one editor has pointed out, there is a section on History of Ukraine. Rather than expanding the section on Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary, we can cut that section down to remove the point-of-view material. Do the editors agree on this approach? If so, can this be done by normal editing, in which case I will permit the editing of the article for that purpose? Or do the editors want sandboxes so that they can each develop a trimmed-down section and can compare them? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

For the "names" section, I prefer the sandbox. But since it was not my idea, I'd rather not write the first draft. Still, I'd like to take part in the process of improving that first draft.

For the section on history, I still don't see any POV issues. And, as I said above, I'd suggest solving the "names" question first. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Either sandbox or inline editing is fine with me. I agree with the proposal to iron out the names first, and then see if any disagreements on the history remain. --Crash48 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


Eighth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

At this point, I have created a single sandbox page for the development of the Names section, at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names. We will see whether this works, meaning that we will see whether the draft section expands in an orderly fashion, or whether I need to give each editor their own subpage.

We will defer action on the history for now while we are working on the Names section.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Commenting on this version of the draft: Most of it is original synthesis of primary sources. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source only makes the corresponding statement in a specific context, i.e. to specify the language it is talking about. Better have no section on names than that one. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


Ninth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

I said that I did not know whether a single sandbox page would work. Creating a single sandbox page at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names did not work, because one editor thinks that the other editor's version is non-neutral.

I am giving each editor their own subpage for their version of the Names section. The two versions will be at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names/Crash48, and at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names/Rsk6400. User:Crash48 has either begun or finished their draft. They may work on it further if they wish. The section for User:Rsk6400 is blank at this time. They may either develop their own preferred version, or they may state that they do not want a Names section. In the latter case, we will discuss whether the current draft should be modified, and can then have an RFC to decide whether to add the Names section to the article.

We will defer action on the history for now while we are working on the Names section.

Are my instructions and questions clear? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


Ninth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

No, I did not claim that Crash48's draft is non-neutral (see my 8th statement). As stated before (6th statement), I'm neutral regarding the question whether there should be a section on names. But, again as stated before (7th statement), I'd rather not write a draft of my own. I don't know what happened to @Mzajac: since the Names section was at least in part his idea, I think he could be helpful to get us out of this deadlock. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I have finished my draft. It appears that there is an insurmountable disagreement on these two specific points:

  1. Whether the statement ...began to apply the term Ukrainian to the varieties formerly called Ruthenian and Little Russian in Flier&Graziosi means that prior to the use of the term Ukrainian, the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian;
  2. Whether citing primary sources is allowed as illustrative material for a conclusion which is itself cited from secondary sources.

Do we need an RFC to definitively resolve these two points, or does common sense and pointing at WP:PSTS suffice? --Crash48 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


Tenth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

I was mistaken in my statement about what Rsk6400 wrote about Crash48's section on name. They said that the section consisted largely of synthesis from primary sources. Does anyone else want to write a section on Names of the Language? If there is objection to the section, but no one else is proposing an alternative, the community may have to decide via an RFC.

User:Crash48 says that the conclusion is itself cited from secondary sources. User:Rsk6400 says that it is synthesis from primary sources. Will Crash48 please state what conclusion they are drawing from secondary sources? Will Rsk6400 please identify the text that they say is synthesis from primary sources. We need to know what we are disagreeing about. We may then have to ask the volunteers at the reliable source noticeboard for opinions on sources. Both an RFC and a referral to RSN will wait for now but may happen soon.

Please answer the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The conclusion (itself cited from Flier&Graziosi, and illustrated using citations from primary sources) is that the name of Ukraine <...> wasn't applied to the language until the mid-19th century; instead, the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian. --Crash48 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear moderator, the whole thing has become too frustrating for me. You misunderstood my eighth statement once again. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source (Flier & Graziosi) is of course a secondary source. I did not claim that this was original synthesis as you mistakenly claimed in your last statement.

You also didn't understand my first statements. This discussion has failed the moment that Crash48 broke the rule[28], 24 hours after they accepted those rules[29]. The rule says "will be failed", there is no need for the moderator to fail it. And that breaking of the rule was not "soon after" you provided the rules[30] - as you mistakenly stated[31] - but five days after that. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


Eleventh statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

I am evidently having difficulty parsing what User:Rsk6400 is saying, So I will go back to my usual original question. What does User:Rsk6400 want to change in the article? Be Specific at DRN. If either party wishes to withdraw from mediation, I can fail the mediation, but before asking me to fail the mediation, please read the boomerang essay again. If I fail this mediation, it is likely that the admins at Arbitration Enforcement will impose topic-bans on one or more editors.

So I am asking all editors, one more time: What do you want changed in the article on the Ukrainian language? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Dear moderator, I never asked you to fail this mediation. I'm only stating that Crash48 broke the rules 24 hours after they agreed to them. The rules leave you no choice. There is nothing like "can be failed by the moderator" or "will be failed at the moderator's discretion". The rules clearly say "will be failed". And common sense says the same. How can a mediation succeed if one participant is allowed to break the rules while the others stick to them ?

You never accused me of anything specific that might merit a topic ban. I'd ask you either to be more specific or to strike your statement If I fail this mediation, it is likely that the admins at Arbitration Enforcement will impose topic-bans on one or more editors., which can have an intimidating effect. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations of WP:STONEWALL and WP:FILIBUSTER, by feigning willingness to participate in a mediated DR, and then, over the course of a month, refusing to suggest any specific change to the article, or to relate to any specific change that I suggest; in particular, by first claiming that most of [the draft] is original synthesis of primary sources,[32] then refusing the moderator's request to identify the text that they say is synthesis from primary sources.[33] The example when an editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines is specifically listed as a case of stonewalling, and I remind to Rsk6400 that his condition that primary sources should not be used here[34] has no basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

If this mediation is failed, my accusations will go straight to WP:ANI. I suggest to Rsk6400 to use his last chance to engage in a discussion of the content whose inclusion he opposes, and to state any specific reasons for his opposition.

As for what I want changed in the article, my draft of the section on the names of the language stays unchanged. --Crash48 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Ukrainian language)

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.

Harry Reid International Airport

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I replaced the Airlines and Destinations table in the article with a summary of the airport's operations, and I believe my edit abides by the consensus from this Request for Comment. However, other editors have expressed opposition.

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

Talk:Harry Reid International Airport#Stop Removing the Airlines and Destinations List

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I seek guidance on what to do with the Airlines and Destinations table in accordance with the RFC consensus.

Summary of dispute by Ericm2031

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

Summary of dispute by Jakemhurst

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

Summary of dispute by Reywas92

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

I don't understand why Sunnya343 is bringing this here. They are the only person in favor of deleting this information from the article, while Jakemhurst, Ericm2031, RobH2488, A. B., Rlrcoasterdude21, VenFlyer98, and I all expressed opposition to deviating from longstanding practice of listing destinations in this article, just like every other airport article. Sunnya343 failed to gain consensus for their deletions yet continues to edit war on the article to impose their utterly pointless content removal and bring this to another forum and waste my time. The RFC closure did not decide that these sections should just be deleted, rather that sources are required, just like anything else. Keeping this table, which does have sources, is consistent with that. Reywas92Talk 14:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by RobH2488

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

The only thing I have to say is that I agree with Reywas92 And A. B. on what they just stated. The Airlines and Destinations table have on what I believe are reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobH2488 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A. B.

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

There have been multiple discussions about airport destination lists over the years:

  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables: "Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles?"
    • December 2016. Initiated by Sunnya343. Multiple options were offered. The preference was for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY."
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables.
    • August 2017. Initiated by Sunnya343
    • Decision: "references must be provided, and 'searchable' websites are suitable for such references."
  3. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?: "Should we update WP:NOTDIR to explicitly state that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia?"
    • February 2018
    • RfC followed the community decision to delete dedicated articles listing airline destinations
    • RfC conclusion: "There is a clear consensus against the proposed addition to WP:NOTDIR."
  4. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#Airport destination lists
  5. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19#RFC on Maps and Airline & Destination Tables "Should we consolidate mainline and regional carriers in 'Airline and Destination Tables'?"
    • Implicit acceptance of destination lists during this discussion of how to organize them.
    • April 2022
  6. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles: "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?"
    • October 2023. Initiated by Sunnya343.
    • By my count: 32 wanted to keep the lists, 21 to delete and 9 said something else (of these 9, more tilted negative than positive). I see this as a decent but not overwhelming majority to keep once you factor in the "something elses". (see User:A. B./Sandbox20 for tabulation)
    • The closing admin judged the policy arguments made for deletion outweighed the majority for retention.

Talk page discussion for this dispute:

All currently listed destinations cite what appear to be reliable references (a mix of primary and secondary).

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rlrcoasterdude21

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

Harry Reid International Airport discussion

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


Zeroth statement by possible moderator (HRIA)

I am ready to act as the mediator if the parties want to resolve this dispute by moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. In looking at this dispute, I am not sure that moderated discussion is what is needed. Different editors are citing different RFCs as establishing different consensus.

The most recent RFC appears to have one that was opened in October 2023 and closed on 18 November 2023 by admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I am adding them to the list of parties in this dispute. This was a potentially controversial close, because a counting of votes might have resulted in No Consensus , but the closing admin found that the policy arguments to delete lists of airlines and destinations were stronger than the policy arguments to retain these lists.

The filing editor deleted the airlines and destinations tables, citing the 18 November 2023 RFC closure. Other editors are disagreeing, often citing earlier RFCs. My assessment of the situation is that the other editors should either accept the result of the RFC, or request closure review of the RFC at WP:AN. I am willing to conduct moderated discussion, but I will be viewing the 18 November RFC closure as establishing consensus.

I would like each of the editors to state whether they are requesting moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A, or whether they are requesting closure review, or whether they have some other request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (HRIA)

Zeroth (?) statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

If there is an objection to the closure, that should be raised per the standard procedure, otherwise that consensus overrides the local consensus at the article. Further, the reason we don't just count votes is made very obvious in that RFC. All of the quotes I used to support the common thread in the discussion (articles should include such tables when including a table would be due... all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered... tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources... WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns... If it is unmaintained / not well sourced - it should be either repaired or deleted just like every other wikipedia article.) were from editors with a bolded !vote supporting keeping tables. Reading and weighing statements is far more important than counting the bolded words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (HRIA)

I am asking for clarification of at least one issue. Some editors are objecting to the removal of the lists of airlines and destinations. The lists were removed because the 18 November 2023 RFC closure stated that lists of airlines and destinations must be verifiable against reliable sources, and the editor removing them said that the lists were not compliant. What I would like to clarify is whether the editors who object to the removal are saying that the lists should have been kept because they were properly sourced and therefore were compliant, or whether they are disagreeing with the closure of the RFC. If there is disagreement with the close of the RFC, then close review should be requested at WP:AN.

I am also asking the closer of the RFC whether my interpretation of the close is correct, that airline and destination lists must be sourced, so that such lists should be kept if they are properly sourced, and may be deleted if they are not properly sourced. User:ScottishFinnishRadish - Is my interpretation of your close of the RFC correct?

Each editor who agrees with removal of the lists should state why they agree with removal. Each editor who disagrees with removal of the lists should state why they disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, independent, reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate they meet WP:DUE. Do I need to move this to my own statement section? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
User:ScottishFinnishRadish - I don't enforce the requirement to post in your own section as long as there isn't back-and-forth discussion. So your answer is all right. Thank you for answering the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (HRIA)

  • I believe the table goes against the consensus from the latest RFC for the following reasons. Every reference in the table is a primary source: a timetable, WP:PRIMARYNEWS (e.g. [35]), or a press release. Secondary sources do not exist for most of the routes, like the ordinary flights from Las Vegas to hub cities. Therefore, we're giving them undue weight. The closing summary also mentions how tables without independent secondary sourcing go against certain parts of WP:NOT. We're not supposed to maintain a database of the airport's current destinations or function as a news service that keeps track of every change to the list. Now, I definitely believe we should talk about the airport's current operations in the article. That's why I replaced the table with a summary of key details, like which airlines are based at the airport and what the top destinations are.

    Of the discussions listed by User:A. B., only one is relevant: the one from 18 November 2023. That's because consensus can change. Also, I wrote the following in the introduction to that RFC: "In 2017, we had two RfCs at WikiProject Airports on this topic: one that determined we should keep the tables, and one on how to reference them. However, I am concerned the results of those RfCs may be cases of WP:CONLEVEL. I think it would be useful to hear more opinions from the wider Wikipedia community [at the Village Pump]." Sunnya343 (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


Second statement by moderator (HRIA)

The issue appears to be whether the lists of airlines and destinations are attributed to reliable secondary sources. The editor who deleted the lists of airlines and destinations says that those lists are attributed only to primary sources and so are not permitted in the article. Am I interpreting the issue correctly? The editors who oppose the deletion of the lists and support the restoration of the lists have not provided an explanation. Will the editors who want to restore the lists please explain? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (HRIA)

  • The moderator's interpretation is correct. Though I wanted to add one thing if it's ok. One might argue that, while primary sources are the only type of reference currently used in the table, secondary sources can be found and used instead. I have indeed found secondary sources - but only for a very small fraction of the destinations. For example, the Korean Air route to Seoul is notable for being the only direct flight from Las Vegas to Asia, and I believe this would be considered a secondary source for it: [36]. Nonetheless, this is hardly the amount of coverage by independent secondary sources required to demonstrate that the entire list of flights that are operational as of today's date meets WP:DUE and therefore should be in the article. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


  • Let's look at what our policies and guidelines say:
  1. "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them…"
  2. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
    • No interpretation required in this case.
  3. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge…"
    • Straigthforward: planes go where the sources say they go..
  4. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
    • No interpretation involved.
  5. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
    • These lists make up a small portion of their articles.
  6. "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material…"
    • Not applicable.
  • From the "Vendor and e-commerce sources" (WP:VENDOR) section of our WP:RS guideline:
  • "Although the content guidelines for external links prohibit linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times."
  • This use of primary sources verify simple, basic information as described above
  • From the "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" (WP:SELFSOURCE) of our WP:RS guideline:
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:"
  1. "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim."
  2. "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."
  3. "It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject."
  4. "There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity."
  5. "The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources."
These lists are not based on "questionable sources" however you could possibly construe that they are "self-published". If so, these lists meet all 5 requirements.
  • "A number of sources are deprecated on Wikipedia. That means they should not be used, unless there is a specific consensus to do so. Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues…"
The recent RFC does not meet the above requirements for allowable deprecation since there is no substantial history of accuracy issues with these sources.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
It looks like you'd like to challenge the closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, I think so?
Based on a deep dive into our policies and guidelines, I think the wrong outcome resulted. At the same time, I'm not sure how to proceed:
  • Were I still an admin I would have closed it differently but it was very close and I don't criticize you. I certainly think your closure was reasonable given the arguments the "oppose" editors gave at the time. Your task was to read the room.
    • The problem is "oppose" !voters didn't give very good policy-based comments.
  • Is there a statute of limitations for RfCs?
  • Is challenging the closure the best way to deal with this?
    • If so, where do I start?
I don't edit aviation topics. I went to the Las Vegas airport article to figure out airline service and that's where I first learned of this. Having worked on list article and primary source issues before, it struck me that something wasn't right.
Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE covers it. Basically it's just a post at WP:AN. I strongly that you create separate sections for involved editors and uninvolved editors if you do open a discussion on the close. That isn't covered in CLOSECHALLENGE, but it's starting to become the norm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (HRIA)

The RFC, which was closed by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, has established consensus for airline articles, that lists of airlines and destinations must be supported by reliable secondary sources. User:A. B. is disagreeing with that conclusion, saying that the information published by airports and airlines are reliable primary sources, and should be usable. DRN is not the forum to challenge the closure of an RFC, and the RFC is recent and is the rough consensus at this time. As SFR has pointed out, a challenge to the close of an RFC should be done at WP:AN.

Are there any other content issues about the article, other than the inclusion of the lists of airlines and destinations? If there are any other content issues, please state what they are. If the only issue involves a challenge to the RFC, I will put this thread on hold when the close challenge is posted, and will leave it on hold until the close challenge is resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (HRIA)

Fourth statement by moderator (HRIA)

It appears that some of the editors disagree with the RFC close which said that lists of airlines and destinations are only allowed in airport articles when they are attributed to reliable secondary sources. I and the closer have advised that RFC close challenges should be made at WP:AN. There has not been a close challenge at WP:AN. I am about to close this DRN thread as closed due to lack of response. The removal of the tables was consistent with the RFC close, and was therefore supported by rough consensus. Resume discussion at the article talk page, but either accept the RFC close or challenge it at WP:AN. Do not edit-war, and do not edit against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (HRIA)

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.

Offramp (album)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have attempted to standardize the lead on the ECM albums and stubs, as most (around a thousand or so) are incomplete and disorganized. I have done my best to follow in the footsteps of the people who have done the bulk of the work ahead of me (three quickly come to mind, one or two follow), and I have done my best to directly (personally) make sure my edits aren't in conflict with theirs. I am complete willing open to word changes in the standard, and would even be willing to facilitate them myself manually, but one user has repeated reverted the wording, refuses to talk on the talk page, and deletes my attempts at conflict resolution on their talk page.
EDIT: I (very erroneously) attempted to resolve the conflict again by extending an olive branch. After repeated accusations of insincerity, my pig-headedness turned to belligerence and I moved the topic of conversation to another page, was insulting, and inappropriate. user:ferret, despite my accusations of bad moderation, showed me my error dispassionately and politely. I would still like assistance moderating the situation, (time permitting, holidays and all), and I accept my fault in both reattempting to contact user:Drmies despite their immediate and unambiguous request for me to stay , and for bringing a unrelated person (that I didn't know) into the situation.

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

User_talk:Drmies#"features"_vs._"includes"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I mostly want to know what I did wrong. Am I being pig-headed? Ignorant? Rude or insensitive? I would like to improve my ability to resolve situations like this without conflict moderation, and it's hard to find constructive criticism.

Summary of dispute by Drmies

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

Offramp (album) 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.

Historicity of Jesus

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Users added that Jesus lived "in Palestine" for the first time in the article's history in December of this year, 2 months into a brutal and divisive war in Israel and Palestine. The name of the region Jesus lived in was historically known as Judea until 132CE, when the name for the province was changed by Roman rulers to be "Syria Palestina". Users have engaged in a protracted edit war over the user of the term Palestine over Judea. The user of contemporary terms for historical figures is atypical. Caesar is a roman ruler, not an Italian one. Brasidas was a Spartan general, not a Greek one. Jesus was a Judean, not a Palestinian. Usage of contemporary terms with a politically-charged connotation is inappropriate in an article about the historicity of Jesus.

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping that a just resolution can be found, because the other users are unwilling to budge, despite historical fact not being on their side.

Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu

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

This isn't a matter of debating skills or logical sophistication. It is a matter of lacking knowledge. The OP does not know that the term "Palestine" is routinely applied by Bible professors to Jesus's time and place. I quoted several WP:RS explicitly making this point, but the OP thinks they are anecdotal evidence and demands a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that Bible professors use this term this way.

The sources are:

The respondent does not know that the terms "Judea" and "Galilee" are already used throughout Wikipedia, exclusively, on articles pertaining to the life of Jesus. The respondent continues to misconstrue contemporary usage of modern names, preferring anachronisms rather than historically correct words to describe this region.
Please note the difference between talking about "the history of Italian city states" and making statements such as "Caesar was from Italy", which would be incorrect. Ironcladded (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, if it is an anachronism, it is not my own anachronism, it is scholarly jargon in use at the best universities for decades before the Gaza war. And frankly, the Gaza war had absolutely no impact upon how scholars use the term. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
It is in contemporary ways, not to refer to locations or lives of historical figures. You have not cited evidence of this, and are going against the volume of evidence available on this site. Articles pertaining to the life of Jesus exclusively use the terms "Galilee" and "Judea". You have been unable to articulate your reasoning for the use of the term besides random links to "books", some of which specifically use the term "Judea" and "Samaria" in relation to Jesus, laughably enough. Why should this one article be different than the other articles on Jesus' life that you can't edit, and why is the timing of this addition not highly suspicious? Ironcladded (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I made no edits about the Gaza war, and frankly, you should leave the Gaza war out of it, since historians of Antiquity do not usually mean the 21st century map/conflicts when they speak of "Palestine". Regardless of what you think, "Palestine" is vanilla scholarly jargon, used by the best professors in that field, and this has nothing to do with the Gaza war.
I never denied they use the term "Judea" and "Samaria" in relation to Jesus. I simply stated that "Palestine" is an usual term for describing the land and time of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
If you would like me to leave the war out of it, you shouldn't accuse me of "Jewish" bias for presenting you with facts.
You didn't deny the term, which is more puzzling as to why you edited the article to say "Palestine" instead of Judea. It is not ever used to describe the land where Jesus lived on this cite or in historical contexts. You provided contemporary use by Biblical scholars, not referencing specific locations within the broad geographic region. Ironcladded (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Since you have admitted that You provided contemporary use by Biblical scholars, there is nothing else left to dispute. At least according to WP:PAGs, not according to your personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I did not do that and you're now trolling Ironcladded (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ramos1990

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

Historicity of Jesus discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • I have blocked Ironcladded from editing the article in question and its talk page, as they currently do not meet the WP:ARBECR requirements for editing content related to the Palestine/Israel conflict. – bradv 06:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The historicity of Jesus is not a part of the Israel-Palestine conflict. You have been reported for your misapplication of the rules. Ironcladded (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
You made it part of the Israel-Palestine conflict, when you related the usage of the historical name "Palestine" to this contemporary conflict. Accrding to Dunn, the name "Palestine" was already used by Greece-Roman writers in the 5th century BCE. So, your argument not to use this term is the present war. Can you explicate then, in relationto this war, why the term "Palestine" should not be used? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Never, in the history of this article, was the term Palestine in use before December of this year. It is highly unusual to use contemporary names for regions to mention where people are from. Caesar was not an Italian emperor, he was a Roman one. The fact that a similar name to Palestine was in use by Greco-Roman writers for the region centuries before does not change the historical name of the region at the time of Jesus' life, which was Judea. Rather than explain to you why Judea isn't a political choice, since it was the factual name of the region at the time of the life of Jesus, why don't you explain to me why the timeliness of this edit and the refusal to seek compromise? The name of the Roman region at the time of Jesus' life indisputably was not Palestine, so why is it being mentioned for the first time 2 months into a political conflict?
No, I did not make it a "part" of the conflict by insinuating that the name Palestine is not where Jesus is from, because that was not the region's name in the time of his life, regardless of how you'd like to spin it. Ironcladded (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Let's repeat it:
  • The name Palestine for that region has been in use since the 5th century BCE, so it's not just a contemporary name. Roman Judea did not include Galilee, where Jesus came from, and lived most of his life, so "Judea" is not exactly fitting.
  • You relate the use of the name "Palestine" to the Gaza-war; I kindly asked you to share your deeper thoughts and explain why the use of the term "Palestine" is unwarranted, in light of this conflict, but you refuse; that way, DR is not going to work.
As an alternative, we could drop the name "Palestine" altogether, as the regio where Jesus lived is not in dispute; I have proposed this at the HoJ-talkpage. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
You can continue to repeat your points, that doesn't make them more powerful.
"The name Palestine for that region has been in use since the 5th century BCE, so it's not just a contemporary name..." That is not in dispute, even amongst the users. Galilee was a separate region of the Roman empire, and it was also not called Palestine, but rather, "Galilee". The area he is agreed to have lived, which is what the article specifically mentions, is in Judea. This really isn't that hard to understand.
"You relate the use of the name "Palestine" to the Gaza-war; I kindly asked you to share your deeper thoughts and explain why the use of the term "Palestine" is unwarranted, in light of this conflict, but you refuse; that way, DR is not going to work." I have not refused, this is categorically incorrect. In my first response to you, I pointed out at this addition was made, for the first time in the history of this article, in December of this year. I agree that the use of the term Palestine should be removed. If the objective names of the place he lived cannot be used, then contemporary terms or ancient terms by foreign writers used prior to his life should not be used, either. Good day. Ironcladded (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2023 (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.

Nakba

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

_Issue:_ 1) Levivich is not allowing any mention of the violence that was occurring in the lead up to the Nakba. All sources are being rejected (Old newspapers are too old; new newspapers are too new; 20th century authors are not acceptable; earlier works by authors who may have written later works are rejected; don't reference French works; and on and on) 2) Bertrc believes that mentioning the violence that was occurring gives important context to the start of the Nakba and that his references support the claim that violence was occurring.

_Details:_ The sections in our Nakba article that describe the lead up to and the beginnings of the Nakba (ie. the "Prior to 1948" and the "1948" sections) make no mention of the violence that was occurring between Jewish and Palestinian groups. A reader could believe that all was fine before the Brits pulled out and then the Jews started ethnically cleansing the Palestinians out of the blue (I say this because that is what I encountered -- somebody described the start of this conflict in such terms, and wikipedia seemed to support them)

_Concerns:_ I am a wikipedia lightweight. I do not have the knowledge or authority to get this done. I raised a third opinion request and the respondent supported my changes, but my changes were still blindly reverted. I try edits, rather than blind reverts; I do not know how to work with text simply being reverted.

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

Talk:Nakba#Preemptively_creating_a_chat_section_of_my_contextualization_edits (Talk section with third opinion in support of mentioning violence), [37] (3rd Opinion request;response is in talk section), [38] (re-edit1), [39] (re-edit2)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I honestly feel that avoiding any mention of the violence before 1948 breaks our Nakba article.

I would like somebody to authoritatively tell me I am wrong in mentioning the violence -- and then start the process of correcting all our other articles that mention the violence -- or to figure out how to mention the violence -- with their own edits; by altering my edits; by supporting my edits with more authority than I have; or some other means.

Summary of dispute by Levivich

The above descriptions of the dispute and my position are so inaccurate that I am not going to spend time engaging with it. For anyone who is interested, my comments on the talk page explain the reason for my reverts. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nakba discussion

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

(Not opening this, just noting that I've entered the discussion at the talk. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2023 (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.

Salaar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hello. The issue here is that nobody is updating the Salaar page's Box Office section and when i made a request to edit that section while providing 4 sources all of which are included in the list of WP:ICTFSOURCES as reliable sources, yet I've been asked to provide more sources. This, in my opinion is completely unfair and unacceptable. Therefore i am here on behalf of many other users who are waiting for the same request to be checked and updated. Thank you.

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:VarunKumar35#c-Aoidh-20231228211200-VarunKumar35-20231228172100 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Salaar:_Part_1_%E2%80%93_Ceasefire#Protected_edit_request_on_28_December_2023

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help us resolve the issue by checking the edit request sources provided and then matching with the list of reliable sources mentioned in the article WP:ICTFSOURCES and then update the Box Office section of Salaar page accordingly.

Summary of dispute by Tousif.15

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

Salaar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The discussion has been insufficient for DRN. The discussion on the article talk page is not really discussion, because it consists only of back-and-forth restatements, and has taken less than 24 hours. Continue discussion on the talk page. I am neither opening nor closing this thread at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_240&oldid=1193610735"