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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus#new content (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

MRSA

I've not done this before and don't like doing this either, but I would like other editors' opinion on how a disagreement between myself and Jytdog can be resolved. It appears that the appropriateness of the extensive improvements that I have tried to make to the article are being removed. I have added veterinary content to the article with WP MOS-type citations and he continues to remove them. He has removed references that lack a parameter that he feels is necessary for the reference to remain in the article.

The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 03:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Explaining the appropriateness of the content and its references.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to solicit the opinions of other editors.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

This is the first effort by the OP to actually discuss the issue (they posted this reply at the Talk section that I opened, and saved the edit above 3 minutes later. In other words, zero effort to actually discuss.) This is not ripe for DR. The description of the problems also misrepresents them. The problems are 1) adding OFFTOPIC content; b) use of inappropriate sources and c) repeated use of sources that do not support the content. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus_aureus#new_content discussion

• Volunteer note - Jytdog is correct that the discussion at the article talk page has been insufficient. I am not commenting on the substance of the content dispute. Discussion should continue on the article talk page. I am neither closing this thread nor accepting it for discussion here. If discussion on the talk page is lengthy and inconclusive after 24 hours, discussion here may be appropriate. Try to work it out first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope that I am responding in the correct section related to this discussion. I don't intend to make the discussion any more lengthy than it is already, that has not helped before and may not help now. I would only be repeating myself about the appropriateness of my referencing. There are many other editors in Project Medicine who would be able to provide input to the referencing questions. Perhaps involving other editors to 'weigh in' may bring clarity. Is it appropriate to post such a message on the Project's talk page? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Macau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Visa requirements for Chinese citizens of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• twofortnights (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please check with the problem, the admin editor delete someone's edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Macau&type=revision&diff=781471895&oldid=781399811 without any reason, but accept the same content in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Hong_Kong&type=revision&diff=780402944&oldid=780401728 line 61, 270

Those information also applies to both citizens

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

someone try to leave message on the edits but not responded by the admin editor.

How do you think we can help?

Let him know the information is apply to both citizens and don't try to delete the edits by someone

Summary of dispute by twofortnights

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Visa requirements_for_Chinese_citizens_of_Macau&type=revision&diff=768621619&oldid=768578902 discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Conservation of energy#Time crystals (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Weburbia (talk · contribs)
• Sparkyscience (talk · contribs)
• Dirac66 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor has made an edit which states that time crystals are a new state of matter that violate conservation of energy. I have reverted the edit twice and tried to explain on the talk page why his edit is not supported by his references.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None apart from the discussion.

How do you think we can help?

Help the editor change his edit to make it correct.

Summary of dispute by Sparkyscience

Summary of dispute by Dirac66

I think this dispute has now been resolved. I did agree with the dispute overview above by Weburbia about the claim by Sparkyscience. However Sparkyscience and I have continued to discuss on the article talk page, and his latest version (a few hours ago) is much improved. In particular, he has removed the claim about time crystals "violating" energy conservation. I regard the current version as satisfactory. Dirac66 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Conservation of_energy#Time_crystals discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been considerable discussion to start a case here. The filing editor hasn't notified other parties. Please notify them of the discussion on their talk pages. Consider using the template ((DRN-notice)) for the purpose. All editors must state their acceptance in a short paragraph at the respective sections above. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I notified them on the talk page of the article under discussion. Some improvements to the edit have been made now. It is better but I still think it will cause confusion. I will wait and see how it pans out but it would be helpful if someone else could give a fresh opinion. Weburbia (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Template:English -or- table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LakeKayak (talk · contribs)
• Peter coxhead (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It was a dispute over formatting. When the article originally said "USA", one user changed it to "US". I thought it was a matter of they preferred US over USA. So, I reverted the edit. Then, Peter coxhead reverted the text back US saying per MOS:NOTUSA. However, when I asked for clarity on the policy, he could provide none. Given that the policy page can be altered by anybody, I hesitate to say with certainty that it's a strict policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

I need a ruling.

Summary of dispute by Peter coxhead

Template:English -or- table discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Milton Keynes Dons F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MK10 DON (talk · contribs)
• Mattythewhite (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have tried to make some minor edits that have been disregarded as vandalism by one of your admins by the name of Mattythewhite. I found this page to have several untruths in it that I have tried to correct, this admin was also prepared to let other contributors change the club name and nickname to Franchise FC, and MK SCUM, which I found wholly unacceptable in fact it was inciting people. I tried a simple edit on how Karl Robinson had left the club, how the decision to send the trophies back was made as well, this was as part of a vote in which I had indeed voted unless Mattythewhite is calling me a bare faced liar. I have tried to contact him but he has stopped me from contacting him over the matter. As an admin of a MK Dons supporters forum, I make it my job to know the unbiased truths from the club's short history and have taken great offence to the whole issue tonight. I am seriously thinking about not contributing again due to this blatant showing of censorship to the truth. Wikipedia is meant to present facts .. what I saw tonight wasn't facts but blatant propaganda. I have seen many other complaints about him on his talk page, complaining about his over-zealous editing and dictator like editing of edits. It is no co-incidence that he has all these complaints against him, and that he probably hasn't said anything either, on any other platform it isn't accepted and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia!
Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mattythewhite has turned off my access to his talk. made it impossible to resolve this

Not true. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

He needs to be told that his actions in letting the prior contributor edit the page in such a antagonistic way was wrong, and apologise for his actions

Summary of dispute by Mattythewhite

The content you added was unsourced. I reverted this unsourced content, and added appropriate warnings on your talk page. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Milton Keynes_Dons_F.C. discussion

•  Volunteer note: @Mattythewhite: Thank you for your statement. I've moved your reply to the proper sub heading. Please do not reply directly to the comments made by another party but state your view under the section meant for your summary of the dispute. If the case has any merits, a volunteer will open it soon. If the matter is about user conduct, WP:ANI is a better forum. If the filer has been accused of vandalism, WP:AIV is a better place. If any editor decides to move to another forum, please leave a note here so that this case can be closed. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @MK10 DON: @Mattythewhite: This doesn't look like a case of vandalism by either party. There are clear issues with some of the edits, and it would help if MK10 DON, a new user, had a chance to hear Matty's more experienced perspective. So, a simple proposal for a non-binding agreement: If either of you reverts, post a brief note on the talk page. If after reading the note you disagree, talk it out on the talk page; don't re-revert. Would you both agree to this? —Guanaco 01:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

By talk page I mean Talk:Milton Keynes Dons F.C., where comments on the topic are most readily visible. —Guanaco 01:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Template talk:The Powerpuff Girls#Lego games (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 68.32.218.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• *Treker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another user and I are debating whether crossover video game titles featuring multiple franchises should be linked in those franchises' navbox templates, primarily based around the multi-character crossover game Lego Dimensions. The other user claims that titles featuring multiple unrelated franchises should not be linked in each one's navbox, saying it's common and should be encouraged to keep them out, but I've cited multiple series where this is not the case.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first instance of this discussion. Thus far, I've shown that there is precedent for inclusion of mass-crossover titles in their respective franchises' navboxes, but the other user believes that these are "different" than the case we are debating, citing reasons such as "the frequency with which the franchises are mentioned in the crossover article" or "how related the franchises are to one another".

How do you think we can help?

Both of us, while remaining civil, don't seem to show any sign of backing down from our chosen stance, and to my knowledge, no true precedent on the subject has ever been set, preventing one of us from pointing to it as an example. as no one else has chimed in, we'd appreciate a third perspective from an outside party to hopefully offer insight and make a decision.

Summary of dispute by *Treker

A notice was posted on *Treker's talk page notifying him of this dispute resolution request. In the time since its posting, he has removed it from his talk page, stating he is no longer interested in these "moronic" discussions.

Template talk:The_Powerpuff_Girls#Lego_games discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the template talk page. The filing party (unregistered editor) has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. However, it appears that the editors are saying that they would, at least for now, be satisfied with another opinion. For that purpose, I would suggest Third Opinion, a lightweight process that will provide an opinion. I am not closing or declining this case, but am suggesting that Third Opinion be tried first. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. I notified him; he chose to ignore it. And he has become increasingly less civil in his discussions. 68.32.218.140 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• User talk:Darreg#Incompetent Journalists from News Sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Versace1608 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I need you guys to clarify Adesua Etomi's rightful date of birth. According to The Punch, Etomi was born on February 22, 1988. However, according to this video interview published by Pulse Nigeria (a subsidiary of Ringier), Etomi states that she is 29 years old. Note: The video was recorded in January 2016 and released at the same time. The fact that she is 29 years old in January 2016 means that she should be 31 as of February 22, 2017. I need some clarification because these two pieces of information are conflicting to say the least.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I haven't tried any other steps.

How do you think we can help?

You can help me resolve this dispute by answering this: Is the age given by the subject herself not reliable in this instance?

User talk:Darreg#Incompetent_Journalists_from_News_Sources discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• South Park (season 21) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SanAnMan (talk · contribs)
• Pokelova (talk · contribs)
• Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a long debate referenced on both the article's talk page and user talk pages as to whether or not the article contained sufficient information to warrant the creation of its own article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A very lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article with no resolution

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether or not there is sufficient information (based on the article history before it was page protected) to warrant the creation of the separate article.

Summary of dispute by Pokelova

Summary of dispute by Favre1fan93

Summary of dispute by AussieLegend

South Park (season 21) discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been sufficient disucssion to warrant a case here. The filing editor must notify all parties on their user talk pages (template ((DRN-notice)) may be used). A ping is not considered sufficient notice for the purpose of this noticeboard. All editors must summarise their view about the dispute in a short paragraph. Participation in this process is voluntary. Yashovardhan (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, the notice has been posted on all other parties' talk pages as requested. I will provide my views at a later time. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rather than take up more space here than is warranted, I believe the comments I have already made primarily on the article's talk page, as well as what was stated on my own talk page, will suffice. No need to rehash what has already been typed. Thank you. -- SanAnMan (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer reply: Hi SanAnMan Thank you for the explanation. As the filer, your comments on the dispute overview and other following sections will be considered. Other editors, who choose to accept dispute resolution, need to provide a summary of the dispute very briefly so that volunteers here can understand. Note than back and forth discussion until a volunteer has opened the case will be discouraged and may be collapsed. This notice board will wait 48 hours (from serving of notice) for all other editors to state their acceptance of this case and provide a brief summary. After this time, an uninvolved volunteer will open the case. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: It seems that the conduct of one of the users involved is being discussed at another notice board (in relation with this dispute itself). Please note that the DRN does not accept cases which are being discussed elsewhere. If all prior discussions related to this case have stopped, please state so. Otherwise, this case will be procedurally closed and archived. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: I believe you may be referring to the ANI/3RR report that was filed against Pokelova. This was indeed closed and archived, with no action taken other than to have the page discussed here be fully protected pending debate. However, some of the comments made there may be relevant to this request. I hope this answers your question. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed that was the specific discussion I was referrning to. I wanted to make sure there were no other related discussions pending elsewhere. If the discussion has been closed with no action, this case is acceptable here. I reiterate that all other editors willing to participate must write a brief summary in the respective sections above. A volunteer will only open the case after this is done. Yashovardhan (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Clausgroi (talk · contribs)
• Irish Leprechaun (talk · contribs)
• RalphMachiato (talk · contribs)
• Marty Hilton (talk · contribs)
• IrishScribbler (talk · contribs)
• DrKatz999 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added Daniel Craig to the List of atheists in film, radio, television and theater last year and since then 5 users (Irish Leprechaun, RalphMachiato, Marty Hilton, IrishScribbler and DrKatz999) have removed him and given absolutely subjective excuses that include "Craig was not talking about himself in that interview", "The translation is poor", "The article is badly written, so its accuracy is highly questionable", "The source is badly written and makes no sense", "This is no more than a throwaway statement to avoid the topic of religious beliefs. There is no documented proof this interview even took place" and "Such claim is most likely throwaway remark to avoid going off topic".

The only problem is that the text that I have used as source is an interview published by DIE ZEIT, a respected German newspaper that meets all criteria to be considered a reliable source, and in that article Daniel Craig states unequivocally "Ich bin Atheist", leaving no doubt as to his (dis)belief.

It seems serious to me that several different users could not accept a reliable source, questioned its writing/translation, made subjective assumptions as to what Craig's intentions were when answering the question made to him and even doubted that the interview actually happened. I really see no reason for so much suspicion. I do not discard the possibility that some of them may be puppets for the same person and I ask someone with a higher authority than me to check this out and instruct me and the other users as to how to solve this issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The five editors involved have removed the content I added without even once talking to me on my Talk page or opening a new Talk Page session. I tried to counter-argument on the edit summaries, but that proved to be of no use.

How do you think we can help?

Analysing the case and deciding who is right: the one editor with the reliable source on his side or the 5 editors who give subjective arguments to remove the content.

Summary of dispute by Irish Leprechaun

Summary of dispute by RalphMachiato

Summary of dispute by Marty Hilton

Summary of dispute by IrishScribbler

Summary of dispute by DrKatz999

Reliably sourced content being removed constantly

•  Volunteer note: I have corrected the filing here and note that all parties have been notified. I will take a look at the talk page discussion to see if its sufficient. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Joshua Alan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dijares (talk · contribs)
• 70.189.254.125 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Edits made by IP 70.189.254.125 on Joshua Alan in past in a bias effort to bring recognition to a past band. Links were incorrect, but then corrected. User continues to change Joshua's name and post personal family information about Joshua. I posted on their talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.189.254.125 informing them Joshua does not want personal information on his page, nor does he use that name any longer. They want his previous name on there because that's the name he used with Black Box 13. Within minutes of me posting on their talk page they reverted my changes, again in a bias method to give recognition to Black Box 13, a band Joshua was in many years ago.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written on the talk page twice and in each instance of edits/reverts, I have stated the same information.

How do you think we can help?

I wish for this person to stop making these edits. If the person persists, then I will eventually request for them to be blocked, as the motive behind this is to bring recognition to Black Box 13.

Summary of dispute by 70.189.254.125

Talk:Joshua Alan discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Bosaso#Bosaso population (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Somajeeste (talk · contribs)
• Kzl55 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Its about population figure in Somali city, which other editor firstly removed and then i tried to neutralise by including both sources, but is still is claiming is not reliable, who has better position say the number of their residents than local government? the cited sourced is from municipality website which claimed the figure, sister city website The population figures are all estimates, I have been reasoning that these we should at least include both as I did [1] but the editor still reverting .

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

this is first one diff the second, after trying to neutralise to include both sources diff

How do you think we can help?

undoing removed sourced content, what is more appropriate to use the 2014 claim from municipality or 2005 UN estimate?

Summary of dispute by Kzl55

The main point of contention is lack of WP:RS and the editor's insistence on adding a number taken from a website that is no longer operational [2]. The rescued link [3] makes no reference to any study to base the number on. They have been previously blocked for edit warring on that page [4], they were also blocked earlier in the month for edit warring on a different city article [5]. They were asked numerous times to provide reliable sources for this number [6] and continue to push it without any RS cited. They were advised on the talk page to seek more recent numbers from UN agencies working in the region [7]. --Kzl55 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bosaso#Bosaso population discussion

• Volunteer note - The filing editor has notified the other editor of this filing. The discussion at the article talk page has been inadequate (and uncivil). The editors should resume civil discussion at the article talk page before bringing their dispute here. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Wonder Woman (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TenTonParasol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:TenTonParasol deleted my contributions "Music not included in the sountrack" to the soundtrack pages of both Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and Wonder Woman, claiming my contribution is WP:OR. I have been reasoning with her on her own talk page to no avail and dislike her simply deleting my contribution without having discussed it first on the talk page of those soundtrack pages. I don't think she exercised good judgment and assumed good faith. Period. All my arguments have laid bare. Please peruse them. Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Kept discussing it on her own talk page after rounds and rounds.

How do you think we can help?

Undo her deletion and let other editors and time improve it. thx

Summary of dispute by TenTonParasol

I removed edits made by the other party at Wonder Woman (soundtrack) (diff) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack) (diff) believing that the addition of a section outlining which musical pieces are featured in the film but not included on the soundtrack is inappropriate, on the basis that the edits were original research. I later added that the content is inappropriate, as it discusses what the subject isn't without any reliable third party sources making such a comparison statement, the article is on the soundtrack album rather than the film's score, rather than what the subject is. Comparable articles, including those of quality assessment, on film soundtracks do not have such sections. Additionally, many references used in the edit, and later provided on my talk page, to support the content appear to me to be non-RS or are an inappropriate usage of citations. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:TenTonParasol#You_have_sth_against_IMDb.com_as_a_RS.2C_too.3F discussion

•  Volunteer note: As the filer had not informed the other participant on their talk page, I have gone ahead and done that. Any volunteer may want to open the case after the other participant files their statement above. The filer is reminded to use ((DRN-notice)) to inform editors next time they file a DRN case involving them. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Volunteers and other parties might also want to take help at WP:RSN or WP:ORN both of which seem more suitable for this case. If the case is taken at either of them, please leave a note here so that a volunteer can close this here. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Have the parties discussed the matter outside DRN. Could a link of such discussion(s) be provided for reference? If no discussion took place before this request, please state so. Note that extensive talk page discussion is a prequisite for filing a DRN request. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

User talk:TenTonParasol#You have sth against IMDb.com as a RS, too? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Volunteer note There has been some discussion, though I won't call it 'extensive'. If a volunteer wishes to open the case, he/she can open it. Though I am tending to ask the parties to resume discussion on article talk pages and try to obtain a local consensus. Nevertheless, are the parties interested in moderated discussion here? and is any side willing to compromise to reach a potential acceptable solution for both. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• List of bus routes in Singapore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Glendonldy (talk · contribs)
• Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added more content to the page with references but another wikipedia (Charlesdrakew) editor keeps removing my edits and states that my source isn't reliable. He is based in the UK while i am based in Singapore, I am sure that my content and sources are reliable. Even though i asked him why he thinks my content and sources aren't reliable, he didn't give me a full explanation on why he thinks that it isn't reliable. He may not have read the sources that are referred to. If all he does is say that my edits aren't reliable and revert my edits, i think that he should be given a warning.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

i tried to speak in a civil manner but it angers me when all he does is revert my edits and say that it isn't reliable. I am sorry that I personally attacked him but his actions is simply making me frustrated.

How do you think we can help?

Please notify him to read up on Singapore's bus history before stating that my sources and content isn't reliable. He isn't respecting the rights of a user to edit a page.

Summary of dispute by Charlesdrakew

List of bus_routes_in_Singapore discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014-15 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StjepanHR (talk · contribs)
• Tuvixer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a survey done by a Croatian polling agency 2x1 komunikacije to the list of the surveys (thinking it was forgotten to be added by other users back in 2014/2015). The only thing of interest in the said survey was that it was the only one that correctly predicted who would win an election. Another user, Tuvixer, started to revert my edits, without citing any reasons except that he obviously doesn't like the results of the survey (and elections), and we engaged in an edit war, which I have now stopped until a resolution is found. He also attacked me implying that I am either an employee or an owner of the agency (I am neither, and I couldn't care less about the second round of the election). Additionaly, he seems to refuse to read anything featured in news portals he doesn't like, even when they are simply used for showing other people's opinion, and not used as a primary source for facts.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I provided proof that the agency is realiable and that their results are cited by most of the major newspapers. Also, I tried to make him tell me which rule is the added content violating, but he has pretty much refused to do so, and simply deletes a sourced content.

How do you think we can help?

I think that You can look into the added content (which consists only of two surveys), say Your judgement and make both of us either accept it or provide additional proofs for our statements.

Summary of dispute by Tuvixer

Talk:Croatian presidential_election,_2014%E2%80%9315 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. Editors are advised to confine their comments to discussion of content issues and not to comments about editor behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Editors are reminded that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing with regard to the Balkan region. Editors can avoid the impact of discretionary sanctions by discussing content issues and editing collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Hey, Hey,_It's_the_Monkees 

Users involved

• Sm5574 (talk · contribs)
• Abbytecat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Abbythecat has persistently changed the plot description of this article, despite the fact that they have no reference to cite. They have even gone so far as to remove relevant and properly referenced material in the process. Their latest change was a petty and sarcastic attempt to undermine the existing description. This user has completely ignored all attempts I have made to resolve this issue, including a post on their user page. My issue is NOT with the description they are trying to add, but with the fact that they are attempting to undermine properly referenced material with their own completely unreferenced edits.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted a discussion about the plot description, which no one commented on. I have undone the users changes, with specific notes as to why. I have also added a proper reference to my own changes, in doing so. I have even posted a notice to the article talk page and user's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I would hope that an official warning to this user would suffice, though locking the article may be necessary.

Summary of dispute by Abbytecat

Talk:Hey, Hey,_It%27s_the_Monkees discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Japanese units of measurement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rhialto (talk · contribs)
• LlywelynII (talk · contribs)
• Imaginatorium (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor new to article is a) changing a clear consensus on national language variety, and falsely claiming the article was previously a stub, and b) adding original research content in the form of fractions (such as "625,000,000,000/52,693,443"), which, while presumably technically correct, are sufficiently long that they do not add any useful human-readable content and in fact make the article less readable to normal humans.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Sent messages on their talk page, confirmed the article's origin as British English

How do you think we can help?

Restore and enforce the British English status.

Japanese units_of_measurement discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I have notified the other editor. Waiting for a response from the other editor, since participation is voluntary. If both editors are agreeable to moderated discussion, moderated discussion will start in accordance with User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - User:LlywelynII made a statement to my talk page, which I have copied to here. I will be opening this case for moderated discussion shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  I asked a few questions about the process and the likelihood of it being productive to continue. If you didn't feel comfortable addressing that issue, you should address the first paragraph before this procedure continues. The comments concerning the other editor's [mis]behavior are aside the point as far as the resolution of the spelling issue, which has already largely been decided and corrected, rendering the DRN somewhat moot. — LlywelynII 16:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be acting as the moderator. A few rules for the moderated discussion are at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. In looking over the discussion, it appears that the area of contention is, of all odd things, whether to use American English or British English in an article on Japanese units of measurement, whose names have to be transliterated, which is known as romanization. See Varieties of English and Romanization of Japanese. Are there any other issues? Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the reasons are to use any particular variety of English, and what any other issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

There is some confusion here: there was a consensus among the other participating authors that "BrE" was established; this consensus presumably remains. User:LlywelynII argued that the fact that the Japanese education system purports to teach "AmE" means that any article relating to Japan must be AmE; and now appears to believe that this argument has "decided and corrected" the spelling issue, even though no-one else has accepted it. LlywelynII made a large number of edits, plainly with constructive intent, but with a "drive-by" style: much of the added information is "scraped factoid", from sources up to 150 years out of date; see my comments on the talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

This noticeboard is, for now, the only proper forum for discussing issues concerning this article. We will not discuss conduct issues, and we will not engage in discussion on user talk pages.

One editor says that the spelling issue has been "decided and corrected", apparently in favor of AmE. Has it been decided? Where and when? Another editor says that there is confusion here. That is true. The other editor says that there was a consensus for BrE that was established, and that it presumably remains. Was there consensus, and does it remain? If two of the editors disagree on whether to use British English or American English, that does not appear to have been decided, and does not appear to be a consensus. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the reason is to use a particular variety of English? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what any other issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I will restate to both editors: Just saying that the issue has already been decided doesn't mean that it has already been decided. The spelling issue does apparently need to be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

A reminder that if no one responds within 24 hours, this case will be closed as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

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

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

• 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jd02022092 (talk · contribs)
• 186.154.38.190 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disputing IP makes multiple edits to late round matchdays, changing or adding times for matches which the matches are listed on FIFA's website, but the times differ. I promptly reverted one time change, citing the difference, then later reverted a time addition, citing that the match time in question was not listed on FIFA as confirmed. The IP minutes later reverted my second reversion citing a source in their edit summary, then made another edit replacing an initial time change with a source. I finally reverted all edits using Twinkle citing that I, along with many other editors in WP FOOTY, are used to listing match times as they are announced by either FIFA, the respective national teams, or their confederations. I am seeking to resolve this issue on the basis of reliability in sources and whether the language in the source is enough to be used to justify an edit on the English encyclopedia.

The sources in question cited during the dispute: http://www.auf.org.uy/Portal/NEWS/11461/ http://www.eltiempo.com/deportes/futbol-internacional/horario-del-partido-colombia-vs-brasil-de-la-fecha-16-de-las-eliminatorias-100954 (this link was used in an IP's edit summary as a mobile link.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried going to the talk page for the article seeking clarification and a resolution. No response was received since the post was made.

How do you think we can help?

I think the sources should be verified whether they are reliable sources to justify an edit and that the language of the sources are also enough to justify an edit for an article that uses primarily English language sources.

Summary of dispute by 186.154.38.190

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL) discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Malayalam#Debates on the origins of Malayalam - June 2017 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion is about whether Malayalam is an off-shoot of Tamil or if both are descendants of an earlier language (Proto-Tamil-Dravidian). This is also an ongoing debate among scholars. The dispute itself boils down to this:

Editor 1: Here's a 1972 paper that proposes a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin for both languages. Here's a 1997 book on Malayalam that states that the 1972 argument is convincing. Since both these reliable sources are by linguists specialising in Malayalam, this is the current and accepted scholarly position on this debate and the Malayalam article should adopt this position. Scholarly positions adopted by Malayalam linguists take precedence over the positions of everybody else until another Malayalam linguist repudiates said position.

Editor 2: Here's the same 1997 book by Malayalam linguists that states that the Tamil-origin of Malayalam is the most widely held view. Yes, it says that the 1972 argument is convincing. Here's an Encyclopaedia Britannica article also confirming a Tamil-origin while stating that the other theory is also a possibility. Here's a 1998 book by a linguist supporting the Tamil-origin theory. Here's a 2003 book by a Dravidian (a superset of South Indian languages which includes Malayalam) linguist who supports the Tamil-origin theory. Here's a 2014 historian saying the same thing. Therefore, it is true that the 1972 Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is not widely accepted even after 45 years. We should therefore note that the Tamil-origin view is the one that's generally accepted and note that the competing Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is preferred by some scholars.

Editor 1: No. Malayalam linguists trump Dravidian linguists, general linguists, and historians no matter how reputable or recent. The position of Malayalam linguists is "current scholarly understanding" until you can cite another Malayalam linguist who says otherwise. There's nothing to discuss.

Editor 2: That's nonsense. Let's go for dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None. We've asked lurking editors to step in; none have.

How do you think we can help?

• Interpret WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:NPOV to provide direction on which position the article should adopt.

• Compare revisions preferred by either editor in the context of WP:NPOV.

Summary of dispute by Hyper9

I assume that this is place where I put forward my arguments. Do let me know if this is not so.

• 1. The topic of the period of origin of this South Indian Dravidian language, Malayalam, has been at the centre of disputes over the course of the 20th century. That is acknowledged, recognised by me and well known.
• 2. A point of difference/dispute arises between 2 WP editors on the current position of the debate. In order to support my position (of origins before 800 CE), I put forward the primary source which is Govindankutty (1972) and the secondary verification source - Asher and Kumari (1997). Govindankutty is a 'Professor of Linguistics and Indology' at the UoLeiden. Asher is/was the Professor Emeritus of Linguistics (and Vice-Principal) at the UoEdinburgh. Asher is also the author of an authoritative linguistic guide to Malayalam.
• 3. Most importantly, both of them have an entire body of work on the subject in question, ie Malayalam. They arrive at a conclusion that the split of Malayalam is before 300 CE.
• 4. The other editor (Cpt.a.haddock), has used three references Krishnamurti (Professor of Linguistics, UoOsmania), Karashima (Professor Emeritus of History, UoTokyo) and Steever (unknown qualifications and non-academic?? needs confirmation) who generally state that Malayalam originates sometime around 800 CE.
• 5. All of these three sources are established academics in the field of Dravidian studies, no doubt. However, none of these three appear to have a single academic publication specifically on Malayalam in their entire body of work. Hence, I clearly argue, that they do not constitute as experts on Malayalam. Krishnamurti's work largely relates to Telugu, Karashima - Tamil and Steever - Tamil-Kannada as can be seen in their bodies of work.
• 6. Based on this I argue that the current 'scholarly' position on the subject is that of Govindankutty/Asher as they constitute as experts on the subject of Malayalam, of greater authority than any of these other sources.
• 7. I would further like to add that the Government of India has already granted Classical language tag to Malayalam. This tag requires the language to be least 1500 years old, amongst its various criteria ^[1]. This conclusion directly contradicts the position of all 3 references of Editor 2(Cpt.a.haddock) who state that the language splits around 800 CE. This decision was hotly contested, but ultimately accepted by the Government.
• 8. In sum, it would therefore appear that Asher's acceptance (as an established expert of Malayalam) and the Government of India's acceptance (based on the expert case presented to them) does constitute 'current' consensus that Malayalam's origin is pre-800 CE.

Thanks for your time. (Word count - 407) Hyper9 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I dont know if I'm allowed to add further information to this. Let me know if this is not the allowed.

• 9. I have found one further scholar who has the expertise to address Govindankutty (1972) and who agrees with this position (before 800 CE). I extend the argument that none of the scholars cited by Editor2 (Cpt.a.haddock) have the expertise to address this subject ie Malayalam. This source is an expert of Tamil-Malayalam and Professor of Linguistics at Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. This is a secondary verification source. Refer pg 10. S.V. Shanmugam (1972) - Formation and Development of Malayalam, Indian Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May-June 1976), pp. 5-30 - Hyper9 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC) - EditedHyper9 (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Malayalam#Debates on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Both editors are reminded to be civil and to be patient in listening to the opinions of other editors even if they disagree. Also, as an administrator has noted, disruptive editing involving India are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. However, participation in collaborative dispute resolution, such as this noticeboard, is a good way to avoid being sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Are the parties interested in moderated discussion here? Yashovardhan (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• talk - I don't have any problem in taking part in such a discussion. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm not opposed to a moderated discussion, I don't think it's going to help much. What this dispute needs, IMO, is a third party to provide clarity/guidance vis-à-vis WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Do both editors agree to the third opinion proposal? If that's the case, this case can be closed and a new request can be made at WP:3O. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• Both parties are also OK with a moderated discussion (in my case, ideally with a moderator familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines who can provide some clarity on them). From what I see, 3O is something of a dead end. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 06:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. A volunteer will soon take up this dispute. Till then, all parties are requested not to edit the page in question (at least related to this discussion) and not to discuss the matter outside DRN. Note that only content disputes will be discussed here. Thank you, Yashovardhan (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello All, I would just like to inform that I would be AFK during large parts of tomorrow (ie 20th June, 2017) and there might be delayed or intermittent responses from me. Kindly bear with me. Thanks for your patience. Hyper9 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they believe is the issue or what are the issues? I understand that the age of the Mayalayam language, when it became distinct from related languages including Tamil, is one of the issues. Are there any other issues?

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• The issue is over the origin of Malayalam. Hyper9's view is that the less widely-supported theory of a 'Proto-Tamil-Dravidian' origin represents "current scholarly understanding" because authors of a 1997 book on Malayalam have noted in their preface that a 1972 paper propounding it makes a "convincing case". The fact that they also state that "the most widely held view is perhaps the one that takes Malayalam as a 'daughter' of Tamil" is completely ignored. Multiple subsequently published reliable sources which support the Tamil-origin view have also been deemed irrelevant by Hyper9 as the authors do not meet his requirement of having specialised in Malayalam itself. These other authors include Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, an academic specialising in comparative Dravidian linguistics. (Malayalam is a Dravidian language.) Hyper9's stance of a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin representing "current scholarly understanding" is both not directly supported by his cited source nor meets WP:NPOV. The other issue is on whether Wikipedia actually has a ranking system for the authoritativeness of a source and if that applies here.

My stance is the one the article currently adopts (and previously adopted albeit loosely), that of the Tamil-origin theory being the most widely held view with some scholars also supporting a Proto-Tamil-Dravidian origin theory. I believe that this is a neutral stance which is directly supported by the cited references.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Editor 2, Hyper9

The subject under dispute covers the topic of the origin of the language, Malayalam. There are 2 positions that can be taken by anyone in this debate. One, that its origin is around 800CE. Or Two, that the origin is before 800 CE.

The first position (ie origin around 800 CE), is a widely held general perception and can be found in several sources. However, what can also be observed is that most of these sources are also non-specialist in Malayalam. This includes ALL sources/references listed by Editor 1(Cpt.a.haddock). They appear to have NO publications specialising in Malayalam. Not only that, there is no clarity in their literature whether they have the ability to direct address the subject or are just utilising existing general views.

Now, upon examination of the expert literature on Malayalam, we find that the experts almost all state that the origin is the second position (ie origin before 800 CE). I have cross-checked this with other authoritative publications (esp Asher and Kumari (1997) which is a secondary verification source). They expound Position 1 (around 800 CE) as a general view - and then proceed to point out that this is not so.

What I find is that the expert Malayalam linguists are fairly unanimous (of pre-800 CE). The Government of India has also taken this position.

But this is not found in linguists of closely related languages - and therefore presented by Editor 2 as the 'widely held' view - which is an unclear construct. As a result, we find that the dispute essentially boils down to this - what consitutes an 'expert' view or 'scholarly/academic' view ? Would it be Malayalam linguists or experts of other languages (who do not exhibit any specialisation in Malayalam but closely related languages)?

I must add that the qualifications of most involved citations are impeccable. Apologies for using 4 paras - but they are quite short.Hyper9 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

The issue is agreed to be when Mayalayam came to be a distinct language, whether around 800 CE or considerably prior to 800 CE. It appears that Mayalayam scholars and, significantly, the government of India (which can be expected to be neutral, with Indo-European languages rather than Dravidian languages being more common in India), hold the view of earlier origin, and non-Mayalayam scholars hold the view of origin around 800 CE. Obviously both views should be presented in the article. Is there an issue about what should be in the body of the article? The body of the article should be comprehensive, and should present both views in full. Is there any issue about the body? What do the editors think should be in the lede? Is there any reason why it should not also state that there is disagreement among reliable sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• Editor 2 - Hyper9 - I think it would be safe to say that there appears to be no dispute that both views should be presented in the body of the article. The dispute looks like it is limited to the Lead. In this case, of how it should be worded. It needs to be decided whether the views of the expert Malayalam linguists should be viewed merely as a counter-view or as the dominant 'scholarly' position or vice-versa.

I would personally prefer to highlight the fact that the scholars being referenced are actually the experts in Malayalam linguistics, unlike the current wording of "some scholars" - which is the current edit of Editor1 in Para2 of the lead (indicating this editor's preferred wording). The lead should faithfully reflect that the counter-position is held by Malayalam's expert linguists - and this emphasis is currently lacking. Otherwise, it appears as another generally held view and does not do justice to the weight of the opinion. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• No, the government of India is not a reliable source here and the "classical languages" tag is simply part of the language politics which is common in India. The supporting newspaper article provided by Hyper9 neither supports his conclusions nor speaks about Malayalam itself. The use of "generally believed" and "some scholars" in the current lead is based on the single short paragraph by "Malayalam's expert linguists" in the introduction to their book. I have copied said paragraph and pasted it here along with my emphasis. They clearly begin by stating that the matter of Malayalam's origin remains under dispute and then state that the most widely held view is of it being a 'daughter' of Tamil before stating that one scholar has made a convincing case for the other argument as well. The article currently reflects the same position. The lead doesn't explicitly note that there is a dispute, but it is implied in the presentation of both views. The body explicitly notes the dispute before presenting both views with the Tamil-origin theory noted as being the more widely held view, which is precisely what Asher and Kumari—"Malayalam's expert linguists"—state themselves. So the argument that Asher and Kumari somehow have sided with the Proto-Tamil-Dravidian theory is explicitly false.

Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, the linguist who specialises in comparative Dravidian linguistics, doesn't mention the alternate theory at all in his 2003 book and only notes that Malayalam was earlier a west-coast dialect of Tamil. This same book has been reviewed in 2004 by RE Asher—the primary author of the 1997 book mentioned above—who calls it a timely work of great importance that has finally superseded Caldwell's seminal work. Asher does not mention any shortcomings in Krishnamurti's opinions on Malayalam or anything else.

I believe that the current version of the article is just fine and adequately and accurately reflects scholarly opinion on both sides of the debate. To answer the other questions, I have no problems with additionally stating in the lead that the origins of Malayalam are disputed. I also have no issues with expanding on either theory in the body either and have stated so in the article's talk page earlier.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

The current lede states the ca. 800 CE origin as the primary hypothesis and the earlier origin as secondary. Would all editors be agreeable to a version that simply states the two theories as to age and does not prefer one over the other? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

What are versions of the lede, other than the current version, that would satisfy each editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• Editor 2 - Hyper9 -

Once again, I unequivocally state that there is NO instance of Editor1's main reference source, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, referring to or evaluating Govindankutty (1972). In fact, he does not appear to have a single academic paper specific to Malayalam linguistics, far less in Malayalam 'historical linguistics'. Asher and Kumari (1997: xxiv) evaluate Govindankutty (1972) and state that he has made a "convincing" case for an earlier split (ie before 800 CE). This can also be verified in a response paper, Shanmugam (1976:26) which also directly addresses Govindankutty (1972), agrees with it and extends it - but which Editor1 has clearly avoided to address in all their replies till now.Hyper9 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Edited.Hyper9 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, I am willing to accept a neutral wording of the Lead paragraph - as I am capable of seeing that the argument has dragged far and long enough. A neutral wording of both hypotheses, giving neither pre-eminence is an acceptable conclusion.Hyper9 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• The lead actually does not claim that the 800 CE split is the primary hypothesis. It claims that it is the more widely held one which mirrors the neutral language used by Asher & Kumari. I would like to suggest the following for the lead:

The antiquity of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. It is generally believed that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after the 7th century. But a convincing case has also been made for the separation of Malayalam and Tamil from a common ancestor, 'Proto-Tamil-Dravidian', in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.

The above version paraphrases Asher and Kumari—a source that Hyper9 acknowledges as being impeccable—virtually line by line. If he objects to this, I'd like to hear how he would paraphrase the same section line by line.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

One editor is willing to accept a neutral wording of the lede, stating the two hypotheses with no preference. Is the other editor willing to accept this solution? Are there any other proposed resolutions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• The other proposed solution is in my previous statement which was listed in answer to your question What are versions of the lede, other than the current version, that would satisfy each editor?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor 2 - Hyper9 - There are several areas to improve in the preferred version of Editor1 stated above. The lead should faithfully represent both positions and be supported by the relevant references/citations. Moreover, the above version of Editor1 makes a massive decision by WP editors that a 'convincing' case has been made. I dont think that we have any authority to make such a decision (even though it is a re-phrasing of Asher & Kumari (1997), it appears that 'we' have made the conclusion ourselves). The only indisputable option for such usage would be to directly quote Asher & Kumari (1997).Hyper9 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, the origin pre-800CE seems to be the common view amongst Malayalam linguistic experts. So would it not be accurate to include that this is the case, as opposed to the 'general', 'widey held' view held by an assortment of people? Its obvious that the above wording privileges one view over the other. A basic statement of both hypotheses would indeed be preferable to this. Thanks.Hyper9 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

Okay. Let's get down to it. Will each editor please propose what they believe is a neutral version of the lede that summarizes both viewpoints neutrally? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

Editor2 - Hyper9 - This would be a version that I would prefer. Also, please refer to the Notes about Editor1's references.

- START -

The time period of the origin of Malayalam is disputed. One theory views Malayalam as having separated from Middle Tamil around the 8th century CE.^[1]1^[2]2. The second theory views Malayalam as a direct development out of Proto-Dravidian in the pre-historic era, i.e. before the composition of Sangam literature (around 300 CE).^[3][4]

- END -

Notes

• 1 - Krishnamurti (2003), on page 21 gives a language tree where Malayalam splits independently from Proto-'South Dravidian I’ rather than Tamil. On the other hand, pg 22 says that Malayalam splits from Tamil in the 9th century CE. Thus, page 21 and page 22 are in contradiction with each other!
• 2 - Steever (1998) is provided as a reference supporting Editor1’s position on the Talk:Malayalam page. I am unable to locate anything linked to the origins of Malayalam on page 6. In fact, this entire book does not address Malayalam at all! The Steever (1998:6) reference is incorrect as it just briefly mentions the earliest Malayalam inscriptions found.

Kindly confirm whether Editor1 has better references or wants to use Krishnamurti (2003)?Hyper9 (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hyper9 (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• My previous neutral submission minus Asher & Kumari's position on widely held views and convincing cases.

The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One theory holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second theory moots the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.^[5]

I don't believe that other sources and the accompanying OR baggage are required.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

Is either editor agreeable to the other editor's neutral lede? They appear very similar. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

Editor2 - Hyper9 - I do not think that a neutral Lead holds together now, if there is no supporting reference for Theory 1 (i.e. around 800 CE). Asher & Kumari (1997) just say that it is a “widely held view" and use it as a straw man (without references) before pointing out that it is incorrect. Without an academic reference, Theory1 just becomes a general perception. And all of Editor1’s supporting academic references now appear to be flawed and withdrawn. It should then be pointed out as a 'general’ perception unless a supporting authoritative academic reference is provided. It hardly constitutes a theory !

Also, I do believe that there is too much theory about the development/connection of Tamil in Editor1’s version. They are most welcome to add this to the page on the Tamil language but I do not see the requirement here, other than possibly including the last sentence.

Hence, the second version cannot be accepted by me. At most, I am willing to add a modified version of the last line that - takes a position or “argues" that Tamil is Malayalam’s closest relative (Asher & Kumari 1997: xxiv).

Please note that the reason why dates are given is to provide the ordinary reader with an idea of the time-frames being discussed. Since we are aware of what dates are being referred to as ‘pre-historic’, ‘ancient’ - it does not automatically follow that a lay reader would be aware of that and ideally needs to be specified. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy to amend my previous statement to use the word 'view':

The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second moots the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.^[5]

Asher & Kumari support all three statements and a separate reference for each statement is unnecessary.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

We will go with the following lede, and this appears, to a neutral moderator, to settle things. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second moots the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative.^[5]

Seventh statements by editors

• Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• talk - I really apologise for you to have gone through with this. And I really appreciate the time and patience that you have put into this.

In my Sixth statement (3rd para), I have categorically stated that this usage of Editor1 is not acceptable by me - and I have provided the reasons for it. The second theory is currently held by all Malayalam linguistic scholars no less, while the first is currently unsupported. I would really appreciate if you could continue with the case until consensus is reached or suggest other options. I know that it has been dragging on for some time but in all honesty, it had not been concluded. Thanks again. Hyper9 (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I have incorporated (via an edit) some minor changes without changing the core conclusion as it appeared to be a better course of action than re-opening this case and/or pursuing other courses of action. Signing off the conclusion of this DRN case as acceptable. A big Thanks to User:Robert McClenon for taking the time out for such a seemingly obscure issue. Hyper9 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Final version - The origin of Malayalam remains a matter of dispute among scholars. One view holds that Malayalam and Modern Tamil are offshoots of Middle Tamil and separated from it sometime after c. 7th century CE. A second view argues for the development of the two languages out of 'Proto-Dravidian' in the prehistoric era. In any event, Tamil is considered Malayalam's closest relative. Asher & Kumari (1997) and S.V. Shanmugam (1976) used as supporting references.Hyper9 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• User talk:John from Idegon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• John from Idegon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Queen of Peace High School (Illinois) Discussion

I am a new user/contributor and an alumni of the school discussed. I gathered information from reliable sources so put on the webpage, and without explanation the changes were reversed. I feel like his comments are not helpful and very unprofessional. I think he also violates Wikipedia's own code of "PLEASE DO NOT BITE THE NEWCOMERS" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers)

I also referenced the "Best of" list on the WikiSchools portal and many of these articles have similar information regarding the history, etc.

It appears that other users are having similar issues with this particular editor removing relevant information from their school articles.

I am willing to make necessary edits but without the attitude and derision from John.

Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted to his talk page in a respectful manner - and got a very disrespectful response back from him.

If that was all you had done, no one would have ever reverted it. But you also added a poorly written, badly formatted and unsourced essay-like history section, a totally unsourced section on mostly insignificant athletic achievement and some drivel that I couldn't make heads or tails out of, at least once under an edit summary saying something like "this is how the school wants it." Wikipedia

How do you think we can help?

I need some clarification - John initially said that sources must come from the school page, and then said that sources must be independent of the school page. I am willing to make corrections but need guidance as I am a new user and John is being very rude/unhelpful.

Summary of dispute by John from Idegon

User talk:John_from_Idegon discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Katy Tur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)
• Mirokado (talk · contribs)
• Knope7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Knope7 and I believe the famed journalist's relationship with Keith Olbermann, having NYTimes as an RS, is a key part of her personal life that should be documented without tabloid style details. But Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mirokado thought otherwise and have removed the content, citing no consensus. But there was consensus to put this content there way before we got involved. I don't know how this suddenly has grown out of consensus because of some newcomers. To not get any of us into trouble on editing war, I have already filed the notice on BLP. Yashovardhan suggest I try WP:DRN instead. So here I am.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

BLP Notice Board

How do you think we can help?

Declare once and for all whether long-term dating in BLP is acceptable for Wikipedia

Summary of dispute by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Summary of dispute by Mirokado

Summary of dispute by Knope7

Katy Tur discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. This noticeboard does not accept a case that is also pending at the BLP noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#More objections to Inbari (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 238-Gdn (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs)
• Zero (talk · contribs)
• Debresser (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a longstanding dispute (search for "inbari" here[8] between the editors of Yitzchak Ginsburgh whether or not this[9] reference is considered reliable source material for this article. Many of the facts mentioned in the reference have proven to be incorrect or inaccurate, yet the editors who wish to include it claim that since it is "academic" it is therefore a reliable source. In addition, the information gleaned from that source on the current article (a BLP) borders on being libelous.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In the past, a number of requests for help have been submitted on the BLP noticboard. However, the reference is still in use on the page, including a large blockquote from the book.

How do you think we can help?

An editor who is neutral to the subject matter should check out the issue and help us decide if this reference should be used and if it is, to what extent it should be quoted.

Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity

The core of the problem is here, in this part of the OP's post: "the editors who wish to include it claim that since it is 'academic' it is therefore a reliable source". There's an unfortunate misconception: it is not "the editors who wish to include it" who assert that it is a reliable source -- it is our core WP:RS policy that tells us it is a reliable source. See in particular WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the second entry, re "material ... published ... by well-regarded academic presses". The real problem on this article is connected with attempts to add material with source like this -- a newsletter published by an institute founded by Ginsburgh and headed with the words "From the teachings of Rabbi Ginsburgh" -- that's where the difficulty with WP:RS lies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zero

Summary of dispute by Debresser

Unfortunately, editors on Wikipedia have an almost blind belief in academic sources. As though academics can not be wrong, disagree, have POVs, be highly controversial, or even put to the use of politics. I think this is one of those cases (the POV one), but am afraid this discussion will not have the intellectual integrity to reach that conclusion. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@238-Gdn Please explain why you say Inbari has been found to be incorrect or inaccurate. Debresser (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon The usage of Inbari as a source has been discussed on the talkpage at great length, most of the discussion took place years ago. Since 238-Gdn seems to continue the discussions where it was left off, do we need recent discussion on the talkpage? Debresser (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#More_objections_to_Inbari discussion

• Volunteer note - Discussion on the article talk page has been minimal. Editors should discuss on the article talk page further. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ezhava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Caste system in Kerala (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aryavams (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The statement "... were given kshatriya functions, but only shudra status. Thus originated the Nairs." has been found in few Indian caste pages in Wikipedia. This statement is absolutely not appropriate and generalizing the whole community of Nairs. Nairs have Ruling class, Kshatriya class and Shudra Class. Only a section of Nairs are Shudras. This statement generalize the whole Nair community with Rulers and Kshatriya in it. So kindly request to remove this ambiguous and very pale general statement on a whole community. Cyriac Pullapilly has never written a book on Nair's hierarchy so he cannot be considered as an expert on Nair heirarcy and division. I request the admin to ask the editors to refer book like Keralolpathi and Malabar Manual to understand about the ruling and martial dynasties of Nair.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Please remove the highly ambiguous statement "... were given kshatriya functions, but only shudra status. Thus originated the Nairs." from Wikipedia pages like Nair, Ezhava, Caste system in Kerala and other similar pages.

How do you think we can help?

Please remove the highly ambiguous statement "... were given kshatriya functions, but only shudra status. Thus originated the Nairs." from Wikipedia pages like Nair, Ezhava, Caste system in Kerala and other similar pages.

Talk:Ezhava, Talk:Caste system in Kerala discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:The Gateway Pundit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dvlsnthedtls (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are many issues that have to do with the sentence, "The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes," which is in the introductory sentence. The only issue I would like to bring currently through the dispute resolution process is the placement of the sentence in the introductory paragraph. There is one editor who has taken that sentence to task, reverting any attempts to modify it's its placement to the "Controversies" section - and that editor has not justified on the talk page why he is so intent on keeping it in the introductory paragraph. Given this blog is over 13 years old, I think there needs to be a frank and open discussion about sources in the past 6-8 months that are now expressing their opinions on what kind of site The Gateway Pundit is; the blog has a reputation that existed before this election, and that seems to be marginalized with a sentence like this in a short introduction.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried asking Snooganssnoogans on the talk page why the placement needs to be where it is, but he has not responded to that query and rather argued other points about the contents of the sentence itself.

How do you think we can help?

We need to get as many people in on this discussion so we can properly weigh the pros and cons of placement of such a pointed sentence. If necessary maybe we address the wording of the sentence at the same time to kill two birds (as to the content, we need to be sure the sources are cited accurately, given how many citations Snooganssnoogans has added in support of the content).

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

Talk:The Gateway_Pundit discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion, not all of it civil, on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. Both parties should be aware that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available under the American politics case. The wording of the sentence in the lede does appear to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. The filing party should notify the other editor of the filing. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• I have nothing to add to this extensive discussion from the article's talk page[10]. I have as clearly as I can explained to this user why the Gateway Pundit should be described as a conspiracy site in the lede: because that's the primary way that reliable sources (e.g. Washington Post, NYT, CNN, Politico, the Hill) refer to the site. The user has also claimed that this characterization of the website is recentist, and implies that the website has a notable past. The WP:RECENTISM claim is ridiculous, given that nearly all coverage of the website by reliable sources began in the 2016 presidential election, and the website only got a Wikipedia article in January 2017. In short, there is nothing notable about the website before it came into prominence in the last two years. I asked the user several days ago to substantiate the claim that the website had a notable past (by, for instance, showing that RS covered the website before 2015): the user never responded and instead came to this noticeboard to complain. So, in short, the user

(ii) has opted to not substantively discuss the issue on the article talkpage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - Do the parties want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Chera dynasty/Archive 1#Cheras as Malayalam or Tamil speakers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue centres around Hyper9's contention that the "Early Cheras ruled over territories territories with Early Malayalam speakers." Regardless of the fact (as evident from the other dispute resolution case currently underway) that there are two distinct theories that date the origin of the Malayalam language—one during/before the Early Cheras and another after their reign—he insists that this statement is fact and wants it note prominently in the lead and the article's infobox.

But setting that aside, none of the sources he cites directly state that the Early Cheras spoke/ruled over territories with Early Malayalam. He repeatedly insists that:

1. Malayalam developed in the prehistoric era. [only according to one theory]
2. The Early Cheras ruled around that time.
3. Therefore, the Early Cheras ruled over territories with Malayalam speakers.

I believe that this is clearly synthesis.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Also listed on the NOR noticeboard with no takers.

How do you think we can help?

Help decide if this is WP:SYNTH or not.

Summary of dispute by Hyper9

Talk:Chera dynasty/Archive 1#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers discussion

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard does not accept a case that is also pending at another noticeboard including WP:NOR. Also, discussing whether a statement is synthesis amounting to original research is outside the usual scope of this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: So when does a case cease to be pending at NORN? When it's archived after 28 days? When I revert it? The case has languished there for 5 days with no takers and I'm happy to close it. What do you suggest we do now? IMO, it should be fine for a moderator to request a quote from a single reliable source that supports a provided statement to satisfy the WP:SYNTH requirement. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Do you know how to mark a case as archived? If so, please put the archive top and archive bottom templates around the case to archive it. If not, ask me to archive it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: The other party has not filed a statement yet. They are requested to write a summary above if they wish to participate in moderated discussion here. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:05 (UTC) Reason: No opening statement filed by the other disputant.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Osteopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jing3094 (talk · contribs)
• Player 03 (talk · contribs)
• Bonadea (talk · contribs)
• CFCF (talk · contribs)
• TylerDurden8823 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like the sidebar "alternative medicine and pseudo medicine" removed from this article, because these two phrase are inaccurate, biased, and damages the reputation of osteopathic medicine. Osteopathy is not alternative medicine. Doctors of osteopathic medicine do the exact same things as M.D., they get the same education, go to the same residencies, and do the same jobs. My edits have been reverted multiple times, and the person doing the reverts are not willing to take any of my suggestions, and also not giving me a reason why.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to give my reasons and started a discussion.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party to make a judgement whether the tags "alternative medicine" and "pseudo medicine" should be removed from this article.

Summary of dispute by Player 03

Summary of dispute by Bonadea

Summary of dispute by CFCF

Summary of dispute by TylerDurden8823

Osteopathy discussion

•  Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--
  • Discussion on talk page Y
  • Informed all parties N
    • Suitable for DRN--CY. A volunteer may open the dispute after all the other parties have been informed and have filed their opening statement(s).
  • *Meanwhile, all parties should:

N Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).

N Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.

N Abstain from commenting on contributors in their respective statements, comment on content instead.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: The parties have not yet been informed. No other party has filed a statement yet. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:08 (UTC) Reason: Not interested in Dispute Resolution

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The J. Geils Band discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)
• Piriczki (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

@Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have shown them WP:USCHARTS which says not to use 1xx for bubbling under

How do you think we can help?

Elucidate them on policies and guidelines regarding charts

Summary of dispute by Piriczki

I cited the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart as published in the March 9, 1974 edition of Billboard magazine here which shows the J. Geils Band single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104. To say otherwise violates Wikipedia policy on original research based on WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTHESIS. Piriczki (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources, such as Joel Whitburn's reference books, confirm the record peaked at 104. Piriczki (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The J. Geils Band discography discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Note that using 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks is itself cited as a violation of WP:SYNTH on WP:USCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I have notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Has this been resolved by discussion at the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• Uninvolved party comment. Why not summarize the source and say that the song fell four positions short of the making the Top 100? This "Bubbling Under" nonsense is weak, as it is a catch-all for also-rans. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: Are the parties interested in moderated discussion or has the issue been resolved? Yashovardhan (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:02 (UTC) Reason: Parties don't seem interested in Dispute resolution.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Paramount Pictures (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trivialist (talk · contribs)
• Sro23 (talk · contribs)
• MRD2014 (talk · contribs)
• MarnetteD (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Someone keeps removing the "Production deals" list (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paramount_Pictures&diff=788550986&oldid=788550382) from the article. Other studios' pages have production deal lists.

NOTE: Several someones, actually. This is likely a sock of User:Nate Speed, already being reported for sockpuppet investigation. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 18:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

Can someone please add the production deals list back and tell others that articles for other pages have these sorts of lists?

Summary of dispute by Trivialist

Summary of dispute by Sro23

Summary of dispute by MRD2014

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD

Talk:Paramount Pictures discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Rijeka City Council (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• StjepanHR (talk · contribs)
• Tuvixer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and another user got into a discussion if there should be labels "government" and "opposition" in the infobox of Rijeka City Council and, if yes, how should it be done. To me, the best examples, at least it seems to me are, to quote: "(Budapest, Moscow, New York, London and Buenos Aires and Los Angeles). All of them list simply "political groups" without distinction to government or opposition (only on "majority" vs. "minority" of seats in case of New York)." The other user insists to put "government" for the parties supporting mayor and "opposition" for those that are against him, but have majority. As the city newspaper refers to the situation as a divided government ("kohabitacija"): [11], I think we should leave out "government" and "opposition" tags. Our discussion can be found on the talk page for more information.

He accused me twice for vandalism and once that my edits are not sane: [12] and accused me for "disruptive editing": [13] Also, he called me "politically motivated" and "frustrated because I was right about 2*1komunikacije and now you are going on a spree of edits on this article" (the second is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:RSN, that hasn't yet brought any solution, so nobody is proven to be right, yet).

In addition, he reverts my removal of outdated (2013-2017) picture that represents the distribution of seats ([14]).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to talk with him and find compromise with the solution of removing all the labels "opposition/government" or adding something like "executive government/council majority" and tried to explain differences in Croatian end English language for the word "government", but th conclusion was to bring the third party (and, as I don't know anybody suitable, I decided to bring it here).

How do you think we can help?

You can tell us which solution to use and decide if we should remove the outdated picture of seat redistribution.

Summary of dispute by Tuvixer

First, I want to say that this has gone beyond a dispute over a polling agency [15] and beyond this dispute in question. User StjepanHR is using ad hominem attacks and I feel threatened by his remarks.

In city of Rijeka there are direct elections with a possible second round, for mayor of the city. Mayor is the holder of the executive power. It is uncommon but not unheard of that the opposition have the majority in the city council, and that the government (political parties supporting the mayor) are the minority. The government in the city of Rijeka, by law, is the mayor and those who support him. It can't be more clear than this. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Rijeka City_Council discussion

•  Volunteer note: Checking for problems...
  • Discussion on talk page Y
  • Informed all parties Y

Suitable for DRN CY. A volunteer may open the dispute after the other party has filed their statement. Meanwhile, both parties should:

N Not edit the article in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio).

N Stop all other discussions related to this dispute.

Yashovardhan (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - As the coordinator has noted, the preconditions for discussion at DRN have been met. I have a question. Do the parties want to engage in moderated discussion, or do they simply want a third party to offer an opinion? If they simply want an opinion from another editor, they may request a Third Opinion. If they want moderated discussion, they should follow the instructions above and wait for a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this a little further and only if that would be unseccessful ask for a Third Opinion. However, I will wait for the other user to make his initial statement, to see if he is willing for further discussion. StjepanHR (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, As I said, I would answer Your question once Tuvixer makes his initial statement.

I simply want to discuss this issue a little more and then, if still necessary, ask for a Third Opinion. Regards, StjepanHR (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There seems to be a little confusion about Third Opinion. Third Opinion isn't a binding way of settling disputes at all, and isn't meant to be used after any other dispute resolution. It is a first step in dispute resolution. However, there also appear to be allegations about off-wiki conduct. These are inappropriate not only in WP:DRN but in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I admit I thought that the Third Opinion should be used if two of us (Tuvixer and me) fail to reach consensus here, in a moderated discussion. Well, as I said, I am still willing to reach a consensus here, and I am open for further discussion, provided there would be no off-topic (or off-wiki conduct) discussion. StjepanHR (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Do the two editors want moderated discussion, or do they want to resolve this in some other way? Moderated discussion is voluntary (although Arbitration Enforcement is not voluntary). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like moderated discussion. StjepanHR (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be acting as the moderator. I will comment that there seems to have been a misunderstanding about a Third Opinion. A Third Opinion is non-binding, and is not used after other forms of dispute resolution. In any case, please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issue or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

What I would like is for the article to follow what seems to be the generally used form for listing political groups in sub-sovereign state entities (and that would be either "majority and minority" or no label at all). I have listed several examples in my initial statement, but we can use the US states for reference (about 80% of them have "majority vs minority"). For example, the New York state has similar situation to Rijeka, with the governor being from the different party than the majority in the Senate. Another good example would be Alaska Senate, since they have both "majority caucus", "minority caucus" and "no caucus", and the similar situation would be in Rijeka, with 21 members of "majority", 15 members of "minority supporting the mayor" and one member who was absent from the vote, despite belonging to a group that would formally be the "majority".

The other reason is that the widely used Croatian word with similar meaning to "government" ("vlada") is almost never used for city (or county) administration. The third one is that, if we leave out "majority" and "minority", a Wikipedia visitor less knowledgeable about situation in Rijeka might wrongly assume that there is no formed majority in the council and that would be a reason why I would prefer "majority and minority" vs. simple listing of political groups without other labels, despite both being commonly used on Wikipedia (although I would accept simple listing of political groups as a valid compromise). StjepanHR (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Will each editor please state, within 12 hours, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issue or issues are? If a statement has already been made, it is not necessary to make a new statement.

Second statements by editors

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Shark attack prevention (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ilenart626 (talk · contribs)
• Allenmt92 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is around the wording of two sections of the Shark attack prevention page particularly on whether to include the product "Anti-Shark 100" (an aerosol spray made from dead sharks) in the Personal shark repellents sub-section. As we cannot agree with the wording, my recommendation is to delete all reference to Anti-Shark 100. There is also an issue with the neutrality of the Shark shield sub-section, which I believe is fine / wording should be left as is.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page. Requested a Third Opinion

How do you think we can help?

Help to resolve what the appropriate wording should be on the on the Personal Shark repellent and Shark Shield sections. Also Robert McClenon suggested we try "moderated dispute resolution" following Allenmt92 refusing to participate in Third Opinion.

Summary of dispute by Allenmt92

Talk:Shark attack_prevention discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other party has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Is the other party interested in dispute resolution? If so, please provide a summarry of the dispute above within 24 hours. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 3, 2017 at 07:20 (UTC) Reason: Other party not interested in dispute resolution.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• BioArt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LaughingAlbatross (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi Im new to Wikipedia. I joined to try to add information to the BioArt page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioArt

The article states "Although BioArtists work with living matter, there is some debate as to the stages at which matter can be considered to be alive or living. Creating living beings and practicing in the life sciences brings about ethical, social, and aesthetic inquiry. "

I added an example:

" Consider "Regenerative Reliquary", 2016 by Amy Karle, a sculpture consisting of 3D printed scaffolds for human stem cell growth into bone installed in a bioreactor[2]. The cells and genetic material come from a live human donor, are expanded in a lab, grow into tissue and mineralize into bone along that scaffold. The cells continue to live on separately from the body they came from, and may continue to live on after that person dies, raising interesting questions about what is considered to be "life" and "alive"."

I linked to "Regenerative Reliquary" and cited a source from PopSci. There are other sources I may cite as well.

I also added Amy Karle's name under BioArt practicioner. She is a popular emerging artist in the field and has been widely recogonized as an artist working within in the scientific, medical and technological community. She shows regularily alongside other artists mentioned in the article.

I am wondering why this is being rejected? Am I doing something wrong? Please advise.

Best, Laughing Albartross LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)--LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have done research through wikipedia to understand guidlines for submission and edits. I submitted to talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please let me know why this is being rejected and what I can do to correctly sumit edits that will be accepted in future. Thank you! LaughingAlbatross (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk:LaughingAlbatross discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Madurai Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Amdmustafa (talk · contribs)
• Anandprakash1999 (talk · contribs)
• 2.50.98.205 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

IndiGo airlines operates flights from Hyderabad and Goa to Madurai. I added those destinations in Madurai. The other user seems to be deleting it again and again. I have posted the issue in his talk page, but the other user ddidn't bother to reply. Since we both violated 3RR rule, both were blocked for 24 hrs. After the block was removed, I posted the screenshot from IndiGo airlines' website in Madurai Airport Talk Page which shows the operation of those flights to Madurai and left it for other's reply. But the said user continued to revert it back. Now there is one more IP which adds the same content and now, that IP and the said user involved in same edit war. I have informed that IP in his talk page not to involve in edit war as I am taking that issue to administrators. I would like to request the administrators to look into this issue and decide whether those destinations can be added in the article or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to contact the user in his talk page and also opened a discussion in article's talk page. They never bothered to reply. I also seek help of one admin Vensatry in his talk page but, he seems to be busy right now.

How do you think we can help?

Its upto the adminstrators to decide whether those destinations can be added in the article according to the schedule page of Indigo airlines or not

Summary of dispute by User:Anandprakash1999

Summary of dispute by 2.50.98.205

Madurai Airport discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Whataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece 

Users involved

• DeadEyeSmile (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
• 159.246.20.2 (talk · contribs)
• Stickee (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a statement of fact in the Wikipedia article but the source that it links to is an opinion piece. (Please search for "This is my argument:" on the talk page for full details of my point.) I have debated with Binksternet over the last couple of weeks about this issue and he has been unable to refute me. I went ahead and made the change today and immediately it was reverted by Volunteer Marek, who is otherwise active on the talk page but has not participated in the debate before now. I would appreciate some guidance in the best way to proceed here.

Since Binksternet has mischaracterized my argument, I will paste it here from the Talk page:

This is my argument:

The article makes this statement of fact: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice." It then links to the Teen Vogue article, an opinion piece, as a source for this statement. A statement of fact must be supported by facts, not opinions. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debated the point extensively for more than a week on the talk page, waited for any other interested party to join in with the debate, waited for 24 hours after asking Binksternet to refute my point again.

How do you think we can help?

It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me but it is clouded because it is about a politically contentious figure. I think someone uninvolved in the politics of it needs to look at the argument and advise from a Wikipedia POV. Is it OK to support a statement of fact with a source that is an opinion? From what I have researched the answer is no.

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

I see DeadEyeSmile trying to remove some text that he clearly does not like and does not want in the encyclopedia. This approach is a violation of WP:NPOV. And when he is foiled in his repeated attempts to remove the text, DeadEyeSmile commits the false equivalence fallacy, adding more text to tell the reader that Trump's whataboutism is just as prominent as Chomsky's notional whataboutism.[19] However, only one observer – Terry Glavin – accused Chomsky of whataboutism, and he did so by misrepresenting Chomsky's speech, which contains a perfectly fine assessment of world politics, and embraces further debate ("Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to bring up other questions.") True Soviet-style whataboutism aims to derail debate, which is what Trump does regularly, as described by many observers, in many publications.

Among the multiple sources saying Trump employs the whataboutism tactic is a piece written by columnist Lauren Duca titled "Trump’s Treatment of the Susan Rice Story Is Classic 'Whataboutism'". Duca compares Trump's diversionary tactics with Soviet whataboutism, saying "Trump’s tactic of shifting focus to left-wing figures like Rice and Clinton can be best understood through a Soviet Union propaganda technique known as 'whataboutism.'" I find the Duca piece to be a clear-headed description of the issue. What about this piece is unreliable? It's opinion, of course, being an op-ed column, but its facts are not in question. Articles about political topics frequently have opinion pieces used for the facts they contain, and for the analysis and comparisons made. Duca's piece was written for Teen Vogue, but that does not disqualify it as unreliable. Duca is known for her strong statements about the toxic behaviors of the Trump administration, for which she has recieved online harassment by political opponents, primarily male, so much so that Twitter shut down Martin Shkreli's account because of his harassment of her. Perhaps some people here don't like Duca's political views, or wish to reduce her in importance by removing her work from Wikipedia. I think a smart woman writer and a sharply accurate political piece are perfectly reliable sources for us to use.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Summary of dispute by Jack Upland

There is a long history in this article of using opinionated sources to try to score political points. The Teen Vogue article is clearly a highly opinionated source. There is also an issue of circular sourcing. When discussing "whataboutism", the Teen Vogue article links to an NPR article which links to the And you are lynching Negroes, which links back to Whataboutism. As I've argued before, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 159.246.20.2

Summary of dispute by Stickee

Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece discussion

• Volunteer note - The list of editors does not include all of the editors who have discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Binksternet has reverted another change I have made to the page which has nothing to do with this situation. I worked with another editor Stickee to come up with a properly sourced example of whataboutism by Noam Chomsky (See talk page "Noam Chomsky Example" section) and Binksternet has taken it upon himself to declare unilaterally that the examples must only be about Donald Trump and that Noam Chomsky's whataboutism is not to be included in the article. This is despite the fact that others have suggested in the page history that more examples be included. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The other editors have been notified. I will comment that the article, Whataboutism, is not about a neologism. The term Whataboutism has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, and the Cold War ended in either 1989 or 1991, depending on what milestone you use, but, in any case, the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age. I will also remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the American politics ruling. Therefore, although moderated discussion here is voluntary, resolving a content dispute by content resolution techniques is an excellent way to avoid having conduct issues dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Awaiting statements by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be acting as the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that the area of disagreement is the section of the article concerning the use of the term Whataboutism with respect to Donald Trump's replies to criticisms of his administration, and in particular to discussion of a column in Teen Vogue. I will offer my own view that sourcing a statement about a column in Teen Vogue to Teen Vogue is appropriate, because the article is about the term and the technique. State your concerns concisely. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I was not a party in prior discussions about this article but I noticed this DR/N entry and would like to participate. Three initial remarks:

1. The moderator stated that "whataboutism" cannot be considered a neologism because it "has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, […so that…] the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age." This sounds incorrect. I could not find any use of this term in the 20th century as indexed by Google Books: [20]. @Robert McClenon: Can you point us to any sources demonstrating use of this term prior to the Economist editorial of 2008?
2. (Copied from my talk page comment) The first sentence: Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world. is false on its face. Whataboutism is an element of rhetoric that has been used by every politician and every nation for millennia (and even, according to the NPR source first cited, by schoolchildren! ). Apparently an Economist journalist in 2008 wrote that it was a "typical" tactic of the Soviet Union vs the United States; this may well be the case but it's also a "typical" tactic of China vs. Japan, France vs. Germany, Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Iran, and pretty much every pair of nations who ever waged a hot or cold war against each other. A more correct first sentence would be: Whataboutism is a neologism coined by The Economist journalist Edward Lucas in 2008 in reference to the rhetorical technique of pointing out similar misdeeds in your opponent's behaviour compared to what they accuse you of, hoping to focus on their hypocrisy instead of the matter at hand.
3. I removed the "Soviet Union" sidebar from this article and was reverted by Sagecandor. In the ensuing talk page discussion, I laid out my argument this way:

The sidebar about the Soviet Union says nothing about this phenomenon, even though it includes Soviet propaganda. As it stands, displaying this sidebar makes no sense in this article. The journalist coined the term almost 17 years after the Soviet Union was dissolved, in a bid to shame Russia; why not include a Russia sidebar then? or a journalism sidebar? or an international relations sidebar? or a politics sidebar? or a fallacies sidebar? or a rhetoric sidebar? or a philosophy sidebar?

Two other editors (Jack Upland and PackMecEng) agreed that this sidebar was undue, while Sagecandor repeated that it should be here because the article "is soviet". I do not want to edit war over this but the current balance of discussion looks to be against this sidebar, and nobody has credibly refuted my rationale to remove it. Can the moderator give us some guidance?

I will add that our own article Propaganda in the Soviet Union, which is well-developed, says nothing about "whataboutism" and does not even mention this technique by another name in its section about Soviet propaganda abroad.

Thanks for your consideration of my input. — JFG ^talk 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. I simply don't understand the moderator's comments about "whataboutism" not being a neologism. The question of when the Cold War ended doesn't seem at all relevant. The support for this article in its current form seems completely irrational. Editors seem to be responding based on their opposition to the USSR, Putin, or Trump. Many people would oppose at least one of those three, but that's not a valid basis for an article. I would like to see rational arguments, rather than assertions, bizarre reasoning, and threats.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

I concede that the term "whataboutism", while used with respect to the Soviet Union, may be of recent origin. The more common term for the Soviet argument may have been And you are lynching Negroes. However, if the term was used in 2008 by a reliable source, the policy against neologisms does not apply. The complaints about the article seem to be all over the place. Will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think should be done to improve the article? (Making the article into a stub that refers to other articles is a valid suggestion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

There have been no replies in 48 hours. Will any editors who are interested in moderated discussion please reply within 24 hours? Otherwise I will assume that interest in the topic has waned. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

It's hard to comment, because the article has been essentially rewritten by Sagecandor in a series of 100+ edits over the last few days.[21] No time to analyze all this now, however we should agree on article scope before further editing. My personal view is that a redirect to the appropriate section in And you are lynching negroes would be sufficient. Barring that, this article should only refer to a description of whataboutism in modern sources (post-2008), i.e. as a partisan attempt to expose Russia's excuses in their own partisan attempts to denounce US hypocrisy. Moreover, references to other uses should either be removed or not focused only on Donald Trump. Again, the tu quoque technique has been used by schoolchildren everywhere for millennia and by politicians all over the globe… — JFG ^talk 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT the appropriate forum to suggest disappearing the entire article and making it a redirect. Ludicrous. Sagecandor (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point either making the article a redirect or a short stub article makes the most sense. It's gotten so far off topic and filled with fluff there is not much to save. I largely agree with JFG on this one. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous. User provides zero sources to back up their claims and their personal opinions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We don't just disappear articles and turn well sourced articles into redirects because someone doesn't like the well researched content. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The aspirations about me are at best not helpful, please keep that in mind. JFG makes solid points about the POV of the article that you have not addressed. This subject can easily be summarized to one or two paragraphs while neutrally covering the notability of it. Which is why a merge/redirect or stub article is justified. PackMecEng (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User again fails to provide any specifics or sources to back up their spurious claims. User engages in proposing a paradox — User simultaneously says we should cover "the notability of it", while at the same time proposing to do away with the page with a redirect. Sagecandor (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Max Eisenhardt (talk · contribs)
• Shady59 (talk · contribs)
• O'Flannery (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The introduction of the article states Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time. This statement is first of all POV and secondly simply not true. The majority on the discussion page is not in favor of this sentence and I've tried to change it into a much more neutral and factual version: 'Often considered one of the best players in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time.' However, some users - especially Shady59 - don't agree with that and insist on stating that C. Ronaldo is viewed by many to be the greatest footballer of all time. To me this seems ridiculous.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to ask for comments, this resulted in the fact that there's a majority against making a statement like 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time', but it's hard to make a final decision since I'm part of the discussion. Otherwise (another) edit war will definitely break out.

How do you think we can help?

A neutral (objective) moderator to make a decision based on the arguments that were given by several users.

Summary of dispute by Shady59

Summary of dispute by O'Flannery

Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes#Discussion about improving this page (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fenal Kalundo (talk · contribs)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
• 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0 (talk · contribs)
• Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs)
• Razer2115 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I raise concerns about some of the content in current main article which I think obviously violate the five pillars of Wikipedia. I opened a discussion and explained my rationale and gave time for editors who support current version to gather supporting sources to back current version. This goes on for few days and I found while my concerns remain unchallenged in talk page, my counterparty don't seems like to talk about content with me in talk page and wouldn't even allow me to insert tag in current article to indicate a dispute is in presence -- my edit was immediately reverted without refuting my reasons. So I conclude this discussion is going nowhere without third party's help.

Dispute focus on two issues: first is I think irrelevant information is included in the main article without proving any supporting sources; second is I think a piece of opinion is stated as a fact and is given unduly weigh.

My rationale is: for the first one, the topic of this page is about a "military conflict", information about "territory change" is included in section "aftermath" without providing any evidence that these two things are connected. For the second one, giving some conclusive statement in lead is a lot of credit, the sources to back it up must match this status whereas the only source to back this statement is a stand-alone statement in a book^[1]. Moreover, the authors of this book writes that sources for making this statement could be "3.Author", and the theme of this book is about economics rather than history thus no further information is written in this book to back its own statement.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I try seeking help form Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in section "14. Can I conclude this source unreliable?"

How do you think we can help?

Please conclude: 1. Whether "territory change" related information should be included in the main article without any sources support the connection; 2. Is that appropriate to state this as a fact and give this the credit to be put in lead: According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.

Summary of dispute by Capitals00

Yashovardhan I think this needs to be closed quickly because the filer is currently blocked for 24 hours. He is here for editing no other article than this one and there is no "dispute" when 100/100, I mean 8/8 other editors disagree with one specific editor who is waging edit war all the time. Capitals00 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0

Summary of dispute by Adamgerber80

Summary of dispute by Razer2115

I am a bit suprised to be included in this dispute as I have not participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page of the concerned article. My involvement in this dispute is limited to reverting edits of User:Fenal Kalundo as he was making drastic changes to the article before building proper consensus. Razer^Talk 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nathu La_and_Cho_La_clashes#Discussion_about_improving_this_page discussion

•  Volunteer note: While there has been adequate discussion, the parties concerned have not been notified on their talk pages. Please use the template ((DRN-notice)) to notify potential participants on their talk page.All parties are requested to file a summary in the respective sections above. Meanwhile, do not edit the page in concern, stop all other discussions and only comment on the content (and not the contributor) in your summaries. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) [edited: 09:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)]
•  Volunteer note: When providing references using the ref tags, please use the template ((reflist-talk)) immediately preceeding the next section to avoid references from flowing to the bottom of this noticeboard. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Discussion should not be taking place both at this notice and at the reliable source noticeboard at the same time. If the parties want to move this dispute from RSN to here, they should close the thread at RSN first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: @Capitals00: while you've raised a valid point and we can close this case now, it'll have no use if the filer comes back here and files the same dispute again after his block ends. I'd wait for his block to end and see if he raises the matter again. If not, we can easily close this dispute. I'd reiterate what Robert McClenon said. The discussion cannot continue at the RSN and here together. If the RSN discussion isn't archived within 24 hours, I'll close this dispute. However, if most of the other parties are not interested, we can even close it earlier. Also, if this case continues, we cannot discuss the conduct of the filer or any other party here. If that's the main issue, this case should be closed. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - To restate, this dispute will be closed within 24 hours unless: (1) the WP:RSN thread is closed instead, or a request is made for help in closing the RSN thread; (2) the parties at this noticeboard provide summaries above to indicate that they wish to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm allowed to talk in this section, but I request help on closing my RSN. I will delete this if it is inappropriate. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The RSN thread has been closed. Waiting for responses from the editors to see if they want moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Lahore#Page cleanup (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Willard84 (talk · contribs)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Capitals00 is repeatedly reverting edits while asserting that consensus has been reached regarding the title of a subheader on the Lahore page. This is patently untrue - one editor asked Capitals00 whether he would agree to a certain change. Capitals00 agreed, and is now using that to justify his stance that consensus has been reached when I think it in fact has not been. I request dispute resolution to help out to establish whether there is consensus or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on talk page; yet he keeps making reversions.

How do you think we can help?

Establish whether consensus has been reached, so that the other user can clearly see whether or not this is the case since the basis for his reversions is that consensus has been reached.

Summary of dispute by Capitals00

I am seeing this more as WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE of Willard84, who is unwilling to follow the consensus on talk page and WP:STATUSQUO, that no one needs his consensus for removing his controversial edits, but he needs to follow WP:BRD. And his WP:STONEWALLING of talk page makes it harder for others to reply his every single message, as they are largely repetitive. Capitals00 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Lahore#Page cleanup discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. Waiting for statements by the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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