Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 184

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Archive 180 ← Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185 Archive 186 → Archive 190

Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute over which similar terms should or shouldn't be combined together into a single disambiguation page.

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

Conversation took place, originally at User talk:ThaddeusSholto, then was transferred to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation).

(Please note that page may be blank as ThaddeusSholto disagrees with my right to transfer the existing discussion there and deleted it (see talk page history). I don't agree that they have the right to do this, and have posted further replies there).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate some input from those with a reasonable level of familiarity with disambiguation pages and hatnotes into the initial arguments about which terms should and shouldn't be combined into a single page.

(The latter half of the discussion veers more into interpersonal/conduct dispute, but I am not seeking help to resolve that aspect here).


Summary of dispute by Ubcule

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

To cut a long story short, this is essentially about whether "Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)" and "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation)" should be separate pages (combining the two as variations of the same name) or not.

This is one version and this is the other.

Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) discussion

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


Comment from ThaddeusSholto

I am just now being notified about this so I will say this and be done: I already notified Ubcole that my view was that disambiguation pages are to sort article with similar titles not to be a directory for everything that is thematically similar. Since they kept arguing and wanted to edit war I simply divided it into two disambiguation pages which to me seemed to remedy the issue.

At that point, Ubcole decided to drag this to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking fo others to chime in [4] and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue [5] he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.[6]

Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) [7] and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again.[8] I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment[9] and then started this to continue doing exactly that. Harassing me.

Nobody should have to have the exact same discussion in four different venues just because one person won't stop harassing them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (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.

Algorithm

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The problem is the etymology of the word 'algorithm'. 'Algorithm' is a Greek word coming from the words 'algos' (meaning labor, pain) and 'arithmos' (number). The other persons involved in the dispute support the (false, in my opinion) theory that its origin is the name of an Iranian scientist, al-Khwarizmi, which according to their opinion was transliterated as 'Algorithm' in Latin. To support their false opinion they invoke the title of a 12th century's book, "Algoritmi de numero Indorum", claiming that the word "Algoritmi" appearing in the title was the translator's Latinization of Al-Khwarizmi's name (!!!!!). Obviously, the word 'Algorithm' cannot be the author's name because the book's title means "Numerical algorithms of Indians". My opinion has been that both versions could be mentioned in the article, but the others insist that only their (obviously false) opinion should appear. Why? They have also blocked my IP because, they say I did edit war, while it is clear that they were who did it.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.210.76.117 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Favonian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj%C3%B6


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Redo my edits 2. Unblock my IP. 3. Tell them that they cannot forcibly make the world believe their obviously wrong opinion.

Summary of dispute by Favonian

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

Summary of dispute by Sj%C3%B6

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

Algorithm discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Mongolians do not require a visa to visit China. There is one editor who refuses this correction.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Mongolian_citizens

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By letting the blocking editor know that Mongolians do not require a visa to China.

Summary of dispute by Twofortnights

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

It surely can be frustrating not to see Wikipedia reflect your personal experience, however you need to remember that this is only because there is no verifiable source to back it up. Rules of Wikipedia, namely WP:V and WP:NOR, say that the content of Wikipedia is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors and that we can't include material for which no reliable, published sources exist. The only official sources on this topic by Mongolia and China say the following:

  • Mongolia: "Countries that granted visa-free entry for Mongolian nationals - 13 - China - Up to 30 days /diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only/ - 1989.03.30" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mongolia)
  • China: "List of Agreements on Mutual Visa Exemption Between the People’s Republic of China and Foreign Countries - 88 - Mongolia - Diplomatic,service passports and passports for public affairs - 1989.04.30" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China)

I hope you understand why we can't alter this even if you would scan your passport for us as you kindly offered. I do encourage you to look up a reliable source that would confirm that Mongolia does not issue ordinary passports. This could be relevant to change the article.

At the same time I must warn you that if the reliable source explicitly says what it says (visa exemption applies to diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only) and you try to insert the opposite information to the article based on personal experience it is considered disruptive editing as you are fully aware of what the reference says in this regard and it's not ambigous as there is a word only in there.

Finally, I suggest reading the page Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as it lays out the policy in this regard and hopefully reduces your frustration on why your kind offer that says "I am happy to submit my passport photos showing no China visa and a dozen China entry/exit stamps in the last few years." cannot be accepted and why on the other hand we accept the Chinese and Mongolian Ministries as reliable sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Deos71

1. I am a Mongolian citizen with an ordinary passport and like any other Mongolian, do not require a visa to visit China for 30 days. 2. English sources are sparse, but here are 2: A) https://www.passportindex.org/comparebyPassport.php?p1=mn&fl=&s=yes B) http://www.mfa.gov.mn/?page_id=18131&lang=en 3. in B), China is listed under "Countries that granted visa-free entry for Mongolian nationals" category. 4. Remark says "up to 30 days for diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only". 5. Currently there are only 3 passport types issued by MNG: D (Diplomatic), A (Alban - Official), and E(Engiin - Normal). From the Mongolian embassy in Beijing page: "Е серийн буюу үндэсний энгийн гадаад паспорт шинээр олгож болно." - It explicitly states that E series passports are ordinary/normal passports. 6. There are numerous entries on the Talk page pointing out this fact. 7. Twofortnights does not allow edits and keeps reverting the page as if it was his own. 8. We would like to ask the community to allow this change to reflect the facts as this article is a common reference for Mongolians planning to travel abroad and wrong information causes real life problems.

Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens discussion

Good Day, I am Nightenbelle, and I am going to volunteer to take on this dispute. I've read the discussions here and on the talk page up to this point and I understand both of your concerns I think. It sounds like Twofortnights is attempting to ensure the most accurate information is on the page for passports. And it sounds like Deos71 is saying that some of the details included are uneccessary to locals due to only 3 kinds of passports existing. Might I suggest leaving Twofortnight's description but adding a sentence that says something to the effect of "These are currently the only passports available in Mongolia, making China effectively Visa free for all Mongolians." Would that solve the problem to both of your satisfactions? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your input. I don't mind any addition as far as it can be backed up by a strong reliable reference. So far there hasn't been an unambiguous source for that.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This looks pretty strong to me- shows there are 3 main types. Just like described above. http://mongoliavisa.com/visa-types.html Nightenbelle (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but that page refers to foreign citizens and visa types. Here we are discussing types of passports issued to Mongolian citizens and that page has no information in that regard. Moreover, mongoliavisa.com is a commercial website run by Discover Mongolia Travel company.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough- One last question- the source the other editor provided- passportindex.org- I've looked around it and can't find a good reason not to accept it as a verifiable source- in fact, it seems to be the original source for several sources on other passport related pages, although I've not seen it cited itself. Is there a reason it is not a good source? It does state China requires no visa for Mongolian citizens for 30 days.Nightenbelle (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. During some previous discussions on a different article we have assessed the methodology used by the Arton Passport Index. We've noticed that the Arton Index uses some sources that are not relevant for the visa-free travel for their index, for example the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 2018 (UNDP HDI) is used and it has nothing to do with visa requirements and policies. So I am not convinced it's trustworthy, and the other index by Henley that is used more often and the IATA Timatic database also have plenty of errors (it's worth noting that both of these websites don't hold information on Mongolian citizens having a visa-free access to China). Regarding the specific info on Mongolian citizens requiring a visa or not to travel to China, I don't think a private company website can override the information provided on the official Government websites. The only situation where it makes sense to give precendence to a private company website is with countries that don't publish any information elsewhere or in situation where the information is seriously outdated. However, both Chinese and Mongolian ministries update their website regularly. Finally the main issue here is not if there is a visa exemption, but whether Mongolia issues ordinary passports or if all citizens are issued with official E passports as claimed by the editor here.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. I'm going to close this then by saying until a reliable (government) source can be found- the article should stay as is.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. Route 2 in Washington

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There has been an ongoing dispute over sources specifically over access date, publishing date, and link changes with a registered and auto-confirmed user. The updates are necessary for verifiability purposes. About a month ago as I was updating the sources the user began reverting changes and edit-warring and also making statements that did not assume good faith. After explaining why it should be status quo ante bellum. He continued to be unwilling to discuss and continued edit-warring even after I told him to stop. The best place at this point to resolve is here.

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

Talk:U.S._Route_2_in_Washington

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Try to reach a consensus about whether or not the links should be updated

Summary of dispute by SounderBruce

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

U.S. Route 2 in Washington discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - A similar request was made three weeks ago, and was closed here because it was difficult for a volunteer at this noticeboard to determine what the issue was. It is still difficult to determine what the issue is, other than that the unregistered editor is unhappy and wants something, and that the article page has been semi-protected. The unregistered editor is advised that they can register an account and discuss with User:SounderBruce and other editors. The unregistered editor is also cautioned that it normally isn't useful just to say that another editor is edit-warring. The unregistered editor is also advised to discuss with the protecting administrator, who may be able to explain why their edits were the ones that were disruptive, so that the article was semi-protected. Either register an account, or ask the protecting administrator for advice, or discuss civilly. 18:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note to registered editors of this article: In extreme cases, and this may be one, a talk page is occasionally semi-protected to deal with incomprehensible or disruptive requests from unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2019 (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.

DOOM: ANNIHILATION

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Armegon continues to misrepresent source material information and spins them negatively. For example, he uses a source to say say a;; fans reacted negatively to the trailer. The source does not say this. In fact, it's not something that can be confirmed unless every DOOM fan on the planet was asked. I have simply edited his comment to say "some fans" reacted negatively. This more accurately reflects the source. He continues to change it despite several warnings.

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

I've asked him repeatedly

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Simply agree to the addition of the word "some" before "fans reacted negatively. This is accurate. Armegon's soucre could not possibly know if every DOOM fan in the world reacted negatively. So in order to be fair, adding the word "some" is fair and more truthful.

Summary of dispute by armegon

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

DOOM: ANNIHILATION discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer comment This discussion request appears to have been filed incorrectly, as the link to the article is broken. Assuming that the intended article is Doom: Annihilation, there doesn't appear to be any discussion on the talk page. If no discussion has occurred outside of edit summaries, bringing this dispute here is premature. signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 30 December 2019 (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.

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The graphs in List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Launch_statistics are overloaded with detail, making them hard to understand. I think this is clearly a case of WP:FANCRUFT.

Particularly problematic is the "Booster landings" graph, as it contains 8 different categories, detailing what happened in the early SpaceX landing experiments. It is even hard to explain them in the captions, which have the confusing names "Parachutes failure", "Ocean failure", and "Ocean touchdown". I don't think this detail is relevant, but the other editors insist it is. My suggestion is to merge them together into a "test" or "experiment" category. I would also merge "Ground-pad success" with "Drone-ship success" and merge "Ground-pad failure" with "Drone-ship failure", as I think this is too much detail for the graph, but that's a minor problem; merging the experimental categories together is enough to make the graph readable.

I would also remove some detail from the "Launch outcomes" graph, merging "Loss before launch" with "Loss during flight", calling it just "Failure", and merging "Planned (commercial)" with "Planned (Starlink)", calling it "Planned". These merges would bring the graph into line with all other "Launch outcomes" graphs in Wikipedia.

I would also merge "Falcon 9 Full Thrust" with "Falcon 9 Block 5" in the "Rocket configurations" graph, calling it "Falcon 9 Full Thrust". Block 5 is just a variant of the Full Thrust rocket, which in this graph is considered to be contain the Block 1, 2, 3, and 4 variants.

This is how the graphs would look like with my suggested changes.

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

Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Booster_landings

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help by giving a perspective from people who are not necessarily SpaceX fans, answering two questions:

1 - Do you find all these details relevant for the graph? 2 - Do you find the graphs easy to understand?

Summary of dispute by Fcrary

The problem is that the subject is complex, and we are struggling with clear presentation of sufficient details to capture the important content. This has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and only one editor seems to have a problem with the current form (although I think the captions could be improved.) The discussion has been exacerbated by the use of pejorative terms and phrases like "fan" and ""infatuated with this trivia." Fcrary (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by OkayKenji

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have not really participated on this discussion other then saying the DRN is a good idea (just to get more input). I personally don’t really mind which way the graphs are I’m ok with simplicity but also we might lose some details. OkayKenji (talk page) 02:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mfb

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I agree with User:Insertcleverphrasehere. A single user can't accept the otherwise clear consensus. This doesn't need a DRN and discussion should be continued on the talk page if someone thinks this needs more discussion. --mfb (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Insertcleverphrasehere

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

The consensus is clear: against the OP. There is no need for a DRN case at all. I otherwise decline to use this informal venue entirely, which is completely optional. I will continue to comment on the talk page and not here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 11:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2014 Scottish independence referendum

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Baloopa33 has added text and sources to the lead of the article (e.g. 1. I have concerns that this text does not represent the sources neutrally (WP:NPOV) and predicts the future ("there will be no second referendum"), violating WP:CRYSTAL. I stated these concerns on the user's talk page and the article talk page, then offered a compromise of adding the sources to the body of the article but with a different text.

The user has since re-added their text to the article lead, which I believe violates WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL.

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

Talk:2014_Scottish_independence_referendum#"Once_in_a_generation" User talk:Baloopa33

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Suggest a text that is acceptable to both users.

Summary of dispute by Jmorrison230582; Baloopa33

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

2014 Scottish independence referendum discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer comment – If you just want someone to suggest an alternate opinion or solution, you may want to try WP:3O. If you want to proceed with dispute resolution here, don't forget to notify other involved editors of this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 1 January 2020 (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.

Australian Greens

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The opening line refers to the Green political party (of Australia) as "a centre-left" party. This is under dispute, there have been edits back and forth between "centre-left" and "far-left". There have also been continual edits removing a "citation needed" tag for the claims. I.e., some editors refuse to come to a consensus and refuse to provide a citation supporting there view.

As it stands the article states "centre-left" with no citation to support this and any attempts to change this or add a "citation needed" tag are immediately reverted with no valid reason given and no attempts to join the extensive conversation on the Talk page.

It would be good to have either consensus on the party ideology (e.g. far-left, left, center-left, etc.) and to have a citation for any claim, rather than people editing it to reflect their opinion.

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

I have attempted to discuss adding at the very least a "citation needed" tag for the unverified claims. I have directed people reverting edits back to the Talk page to get them to discuss their point of view. Others have discussed changing between "far-left" and "center-left".

It is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Greens#Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Greens#Greens/Centre-left

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute could be resolved by editors being forced to provide evidence (i.e. a citation) of the party's political position. Or, if no evidence can be provided then the claim could be deleted. Currently it is edited to reflect opinions. Opinions are not encyclopedic content.

Note: I don't care what the final party position reflects (e.g. left, center, right), as long there is evidence to support it.

Summary of dispute by The_Drover's_Wife

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

It is a political party. There isn't going to be an authoritative source that can arbitrate exactly which flavour of left-wing the party is, and the same applies for every progressive political party in the world (or, on the other side of politics, for conservative parties): you can find sources that support particular language, but there will always be sources that support using different descriptions. This is the kind of thing that can only be resolved by coming to a talk page consensus about which language to use based on a body of sources, rather than a specific citation that's going to be able to resolve the issue once and for all. And so, somebody who hasn't engaged in any discussion whatsoever (what do they support? who knows?) but has an edit history filled with culture-war issues, insistently adding a citation needed tag to the lead section is just trolling behaviour. I'm not particularly concerned which terminology we actually use (centre-left? left-wing? could be either?), but if someone disagrees with the one that's currently in use, they need to take it to the talk page and articulate why so we can have a discussion about it rather than slap on a citation needed tag that is unanswerable because, by definition as a political party ideology, no authoritative source exists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vif12vf

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

Australian Greens discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fox News 2

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Fox News's lead is not following reliable sourcing standards because it is using completely biased opinionated sources to establish a descriptive detailing of a company's page (i.e. the lead paragraph). I, along with many others, on the article's talk page, have discussed restructuring or removing the third paragraph of the lead because of biased sourcing and a reluctance to include information that is contradictory to the narrative portrayed by the sources in question.

I have very rarely seen opinion columns used in the lead, especially for a news organization's article. CNN and MSNBC, for example, have many sources of biased reporting which are not permitted in those organization's articles within the lead by overzealous editors.

When we present information that is contradictory to the opinions stated within the sources in question, such as this article[10] by The Perspective, that contradictory information is deleted. This is a blatant misuse of neutral point of view and the standards set fourth by Wikipedia to have opposing points of view. In addition, sourcing we have set fourth have been equally reliable when viewed within the "lens" of the existing sourcing.

I hope to have this issued resolved. Many others have suggested the third paragraph of the lead of Fox News either be restructured or deleted. I have suggested removing the final sentence: "During Trump's presidency, observers have noted a pronounced tendency of Fox News to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "it’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.", as it uses most of the unreliable sourcing, but I would suggest the entire paragraph be restructured.


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

[[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?


Please advise if these sources are indeed following Wikipedia's standards, because if so, we should be allowed to present opposing viewpoints, such as [16] to the lead without question, or place equally partisan sourcing on CNN or MSNBC's articles stating bias, which we have been reverted immediately without explanation. Fox News and other conservative outlets should not have a different standard when enforcing these rules.

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

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

Summary of dispute by BullRangifer

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

This is not proper. Stick to using the talk page. Using this board to get around the consensus at the talk page is wrong. Close this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Edit5001

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

Fox News discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - One editor has declined to participate. Participation in discussion at DRN is voluntary. If the other editors choose to participate in discussion, moderated discussion may be conducted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (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.

Citizenship (Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

1. - There is a section "Indian Government Response" in article "Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. But this section does not have any sources or content related to official statements made by Indian Government on 16 December 2019 and later and which were covered widely by Indian Media. Only links of statements of personal platform of Modi are referenced in this section. This in my opinion among other anomalies makes this Wikipedia article very biased. The individual ministers may have different opinions but there is an Indian Government Response based on consensus. My main concern is that Wikipedia article should not be biased one.

2. - I tried to edit the article to remove this issue. But those edits were reverted and vague notices accusing me of "Original Research" were put up on my talk page. Other than referencing links of Wikipedia policies, they did not specify what were the Original Research links put by me. I was told to discuss on Article talk page which I did. But the editors were unable to tell which were the "Original Research" links put by me as per their claims. The editors would not discuss details of why the links or content for 'Official Indian Government Response' were rejected by them even though I showed examples of some links which were secondary and reliable. I was then told to go to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum.

3. - At the Reliable Source notice Board Forum, there has been support for adding the reliable links and content covering official statements of Indian Government for this issue. Until now, there has been no opposition for adding the Official version of Indian Government on that Forum.

4. - As the editors on the talk page have not shown much interest in talking regarding this issue and only make wild accusations on me, I have come here to ask for guidance what can be done to make the article non-biased.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#1st_para_of_%22Indian_government_response%22_references_Modi_instead_of_Indian_Government, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_references_of_Modi_response_on_his_personal_platform_violating_ContextMatters_for_section_%22Indian_Government_response%22_of_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_2019_?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can guide how to make this Wikipedia article non-biased. Should the content for official Indian Government Response on this issue be included in the section of same name of this article ?

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

There is no dispute here yet, because no concrete proposal for any content has been made. It would be premature to open a DRN case for it. There is some abstract demand saying that a government FAQ needs to be "covered". But what exactly needs to be covered?

The OP has been advised to approach WP:Teahouse for guidance. It is not clear if he has done so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vanamonde93

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

I confess I have struggled to understand what Kmoksha is trying to get at, because their complaints on the talk page and their edits to the page itself seem to have a tangential relationship at best, and also because they have yet to familiarize themselves with many of our core policies. This request is premature. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship (Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response discussion

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

It is not clear why the Article Talk page editor wants me to go to Tea House forum. That does not seem to be forum for discussing specifically on the issues of the article. Why the editor does not want to discuss properly on the Article Talk page ? I have already gone to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum. That was after the editor at the talk page asked me to do so. And the response there was supportive for adding "Official Government statements in form of FAQs for CAA". It proves that the proposal made by me is clear. Please see - [17]

In spite of claims that the proposal is not clear by the Article Talk page editor, I had specifically mentioned examples of 3-4 links which could be put in the article along with relevant content from those links. But the Article Talk page editor did not show interest in discussing in detail even though they reverted my edit within minutes. It is highly doubtful that they went through my edit properly before reverting my edit. Still, I posted on the Article Talk page. They are just asking me to go to several forums and not interested in discussing the issue. Kmoksha (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (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.

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is very simple and revolves around Wikipedia policy: If newly added content has been challenged by multiple editors should it removed from the page until there is a consensus for the inclusion of the content? Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Other editors claim that newly added challenged content should be removed from the article until there is consensus for inclusion.

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

[[18]]

[[19]]

[[20]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We just need a clarification on how Wikipedia policy works.

Summary of dispute by MikkelJSmith2

I'll adapt some of what I wrote in Village Pump, due to the fact that it resumed the situation. I think part of the confusion comes from what I did. It wasn't due to bad intentions. After all, I've been answering complaints and trying to better the page. I've made some changes regarding the complaints (added other sources for one claim where an editor said it was WP:UNDUE) and added multiple reliable sources to the page.

To resume the situation, the page was reverted to before some changes were made since the changes in question were being talked about on the talk page. I did this because of what I understood about policy at the time, which I'm still not sure about since I've heard conflicting things now.

Anyway, to go into more detail, what I did was restore Selvydra's edit, which fixed some stuff but still had some objected content in it as well as some fixes that other users had made: adding more sources to meet WP:DUE, trimming, the use of different words per MOS and replacing said with opined in other cases. The problem I guess is that we never really came to a consensus on the objected content on the talk page. That's not to say that we were idle, we went over some complaints, 4 of them have been resolved, see here [21] and I've answered another complaint. I'm currently waiting for the answer regarding that one. And, we will hopefully move on from there.

However, in terms of some of the complaints, I need to mention that some objections went against the larger consensus at Wikipedia (i.e. the consensus from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Some editors disputed the use of Fox News (the RS, i.e reliable part of that network), Business Insider (an RS), and op-eds that fell within RSes. Another complaint was the use of Paste, which is currently undergoing a RfC on the noticeboard (I was waiting for an answer there before doing anything) and a Tweet from ABC News (I've responded to that complaint by adding the reliable ABC News source, but I haven't had a response from anyone regarding my fix). There are other complaints regarding sources that are WP:BIASED and aren't listed on Perennial sources, such as Current Affairs, but we never really came to a solution. I was of the opinion that we should attribute some of them.

So, I don't think any of the editors have bad intentions here, it's due to a difference in regards to understanding policy.

For more background information see this conversation on village pump [22].

Thank you for your time and help. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Selvydra

Context: This article underwent AfD early on, and it yielded no consensus. As a result, both sides ('delete' and 'keep') seem to be concerned that whichever side has priority (after 23 days) can stonewall the other's changes on that content, because consensuses may not be reached on the talk page, either.

Concerns: Due to this bleak onlook on achieving a satisfying consensus, 'keepers' worry that everything in the article that the deleters disagree with will be removed, never to be returned. Meanwhile (correct me if I'm wrong), 'deleters' have expressed concern that 'keepers' can stonewall them from changing what's wrong with the article.

Content & policy: I mostly agree with how MrX has summarized this below. Re: his 1. point: A significant amount of content has been removed by Snooganssnoogans and some others because they have found several biased sources as not RS (they're not listed as such in WP:RSPSOURCES), which resulted in WP:NPOV concerns being voiced (that, in left-media vs. mainstream media in the article, the former half is forward about its bias and is getting removed as not RS, leaving the latter half as the stronger voice in the article).

Correction to the main Dispute overview: In Snooganssnoogans' dispute overview, I find the following representation misleading (emphasis added): Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Rather, editors including myself have asserted that 23 days and the no-delete AfD should protect that content from deletion-until-consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Ultimately, I hope that the concerns of both sides can be alleviated somehow. The consensus dilemma shouldn't allow for either unfettered deletionism or inclusionism.

Summary of dispute by MrX

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

From my perspective, the dispute centers around a couple of questions:

  1. Are the quality of some of the sources appropriate for an article about this subject?
  2. Does content added to the article enjoy automatic WP:CONSENSUS because it was not substantially challenged for 23 days, or does WP:ONUS apply? In other words, is a removal of three-week-old content sufficient to be considered a revert of WP:EDITCONSENSUS ("Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.") or WP:SILENT ("Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement.")? More or less what Snooganssnoogans has summarized above. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SashiRolls

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

I don't remember exactly where I was canvassed from for the AfD, but I'm pretty sure it was Snoog who brought me here. I agree people shouldn't get stressed out about things disappearing for a day or two or even (gasp!) a week... MrX & Snoog describe the AmPol rituals accurately, this is why I removed the 20K chunk of text once.

Let them slash. As the Clintons liked to say in Haiti, build back better.

Also, there is an open question about the CounterPunch entry on my TP, that is, it seems to me, not entirely unrelated to questions of wiki/media slant. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Chevvin

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

Summary of dispute by Wrestlinglover

Issue I have first is the mischaracteration of the dispute when this is brought up. This isn't new material. This is material that has been around for weeks when in the history of this article is a very long time. This is material that has been discussed several times resulting in no consensus but all have already agreed on the material being there, in what manner it should be there. Now we have went to deletion entirely. Which I feel is an attempt at TE of sorts with the original editor that removed the material. The material is sourced with reliability under discussion for some of the material at stake. The main point of EDITCONSENSUS is that a consensus is established for the material to remove in the article is left undisturbed for a period of time. Once it is contested a discussion must occur with reasons the material should be released because immediately removal is a sign of edit warring that will occur between editors that wish have the material made. The third line of the policy lists that a new consensus for the editing of the old material is not established unless that removal is disputed. If it is disputed that new edit cannot remain and must be discussed. You can't establish a new consensus for the material to be removed unless it is undisputed. ONUS doesn't come into effect until after the material is being made because it is about inclusion of material that is under existing dispute. Not material at a new dispute. Believing otherwise would allow editors to randomly remove material on pages and disagree with its POV and hold the page hostage until a discussion is created to override their objection. This would be why improvement tags exist. To challenge existing material.--WillC 21:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rmdsc

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

Summary of dispute by SharabSalam

  • I dont know how am I involved in this and I am having some health problems and I dont have the ability to read what is going on in the talk page but I personally believe that newly added content may be removed iff there are legit objective arguments and consensus against the inclusion. But if the arguments are trouble and there is no clear consensus then we would have a problem with editors undermining the developing of articles by making some phoney arguments against the inclusion, in this case, we should include the newly added content.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rafe87

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

Summary of dispute by Ryk72

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

"Present" - Ryk72 talk 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slywriter

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

It's my belief that this article serves as borderline propaganda and is not encyclopedic. Any attempt to change that is met with reversions and claims of silent consensus.

Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadlines. This article is an attempt to cover events as they happen and has no view towards the long term.

The article has become a collection of quotes that justify a position. These quotes are often non-RS/borderline RS, partisan media, or off the cuff remarks that are tied together, SYNTHESIS, to arrive at a conclusion.

Finally, if this article is to exist in its current state then every Presidential Candidates' supporters would be justified to do the same quote farming to frame an article positively or negatively about how the media portrays them.

Slywriter (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ahunt

Sorry, I have not edited the article or its talk page. Just gave one participant some general editing advice at User talk:Ahunt#Deletion, so really nothing I can contribute here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
There is an underlying content dispute which is at an impasse because of the lack of clarity in the policy, and a lack of WP:DR experience of several editors. - MrX 🖋 19:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
In the spirit of not a bureaucracy and that the article is at a legitimate impasse barring additional editors, I think mediation of any sort to provide clarity would be great. If mediation fails or the ultimate issue is policies themselves then those wider conversations should occur in the appropriate forums. Slywriter (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Only if all arguments are laid out neatly could we achieve some sort of resolution here. We have a wide issue of people having vague stances and seem to fall into IDONTLIKEIT territory.--WillC 21:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Comment - I will state an opinion, which is only my opinion. I agree that the policy is not completely clear, but that a policy-based argument can be made to remove the content, and there is not a policy-based argument to keep the content pending discussion. Consensus is Wikipedia policy. So if there is consensus, we follow consensus. If there isn't consensus, the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is used, which is that the questioned material is reverted (left out) until after discussion. There are reasons to leave the material out, but not reasons to keep the material in. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)\
    • The problem with it is the consensus part. The policy suggests a consensus exists so the material is valid for inclusion if not disputed. Which would be the overriding consensus meaning a new one is needed to end the previous consensus from having overruling ground. If removal is undisputed then a new consensus is created per policy. If it is disputed, no new consensus has been reached.--WillC 21:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Reminder - Remember that American politics discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    Robert McClenon, what is that exactly? I'm unfamiliar with that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
User:MikkelJSmith - What is what? What is ARBAP2? (Click on it and read it.) ArbCom discretionary sanctions are rules permitting administrators to impose restrictions on editors who edit disruptively in areas subject to frequent disruption, or in areas requiring special caution. Some of the topic areas that are subject to special restrictions are areas that are subject to battleground editing because they are or have been real battlegrounds, such as Palestine and Israel and India and Pakistan. Another of them is American politics, even though that has not involved battles in the past 150 years, but it sometimes comes close to it. Basically, if you don't know much about ArbCom discretionary sanctions, you don't need to know much about them, because you can avoid having to learn about unpleasant rules by not being an unpleasant editor. If that is all you know about these rules, that is all that you need to know about these rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As for editing, I try my best to be a good editor. If I've done something wrong, it tends to usually be from ignorance or misunderstanding. Some intricacies of this site are sometimes hard. MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd think the policies for biographies of living persons also apply, since Mr. Sanders is clearly alive and the article is about him (even if it is not a biography.) Fcrary (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
User:Fcrary - That is true. But the collateral damage from American politics goes beyond American politicians into subject matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The editor Selvydra (a single-purpose account who near-exclusively edits Bernie Sanders-related content) claims "that 23 days and the no-delete AfD should protect that content from deletion-until-consensus, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS." However, the content in question was challenged by multiple editors in the AFD, as well as on the article talk page, from essentially the time it was added. The content has never ever for whatever short period time enjoyed a consensus. It has always been disputed. And that's also ignoring the fact that merely existing for 3 weeks =/= long-standing stable content that enjoys consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • And the afd had those discussions result in a no consensus. That discussion is dead. New discussion.--WillC 00:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Full disclosure, given the accusations levied at me: I am a European who has followed US politics and particularly Sanders closely since 2015. I've have had this account for some time, but only more recently started editing some Sanders-related pages, because I had information to contribute (that I eventually did reach consensus with, after many hiccups due to my inexperience and the contentious topic). As for this topic – do I think he's suffered from media bias? I think it's obvious, given that the media would be going against their own financial incentives if they covered him fairly. AT&T, Comcast, Fox Corp. all have owners who stand to lose a lot of money if a left-leaning candidate such as Sanders is elected. And that is a big part of why I've largely been on the side of retaining content that details incidents of this bias. I'm concerned that some editors vehemently disagree with this premise and are trying to rules-lawyer this content off the site – mainly by decreeing all non-mainstream-media as non-RS and thus only leaving CNN to say that MSNBC isn't biased, and MSNBC to say WaPo isn't biased, etc...
Instead of unilateral large-scale removals (or indeed content dumps), can we work together to trim down parts that are WP:UNDUE, come to a mutual agreement on what is and isn't RS and see that the article as a whole represents both mainstream media and its detractors reasonably fairly? Selvydra (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem namely is between editors who want to include information that presents a bias and editors who want all such information removed and the article deleted regardless of the sources or the content. That is the problem.--WillC 08:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • New volunteer comment. The way Wikipedia policy works is that editors are expected to show good faith with an eye towards WP:Consensus. If editors don't do that, then things break down. @Wrestlinglover: You in particular need to calm things already. You're getting pretty worked up over this, and that only leads to negative feelings and resentment. If you truly would like to see your preferred version, then work with the folks you disagree with. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
MJL I've had my credentials questioned and my ability on this site as well while seeing excuses of IDONTLIKE and obvious examples of TE. I think my attitude is warranted. I unlike others involved in this, have focused solely on discussion and have less than 5 edits on the main article as such. Meanwhile, others involved have dozens and have shunned discussion infavor of wanting TNT. I don't see my attitude as having escalated this issue moreso than attempts to mischaracterize issues definitely had.--WillC 08:40, 31 December 2019 (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.

Statuta Valachorum

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I put information in the article about Vlachs along with Serbs because in that area they are mentioned Vlachs in the books together with Serbs or without Serbs but with Uskoks, Hajduks etc(it is based on sources). And I deleted information that Vlachs are mostly Serbs because Croats are mentioned in that area and others who became Vlachs and this claim requires consensus.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Statuta_Valachorum#Last_change_of_article_and_possible_controversial_edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikola22#Removing_sourced_content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you can help because historical data, historians and books mentione Vlachs and others who are under the Statuta Valachorum. If data about Vlachs can not be entered and in the article there is information about the Serbs which are least mentioned there, I do not know which purpose is of existence this article with name Statuta Valachorum (Vlachs statute). What would happened if I start putting data which speak that half of Vlachs communitie are Croats(information from the 2019.)

Summary of dispute by Sadkσ

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

Some does not mean most. Thus "some Croats" does not contradict (and thus overturn) "mostly Serb". Also as far as I can tell from discussion all the sources mentioned by the OP talk about the situation in the 19thc (or latter), not about what the term Vlachs meant in the document that is the articles subject (well that seems to be what the OP said anyway). Frankly it does not help matters that the OP tends to post tracts of text that are rather difficult to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Statuta Valachorum discussion

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

Volunteer comment - There doesn't appear to have been extensive discussion on the talk page. Please try to convince other editors there before coming here. Additionally, given that the filing editor has generally failed to modify their position even when presented with strong policy-based arguments in previous discussions on this board (see this discussion in particular), I don't think that much good is likely to come from attempting to resolve this dispute here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding White Croatia question thing is clear ([[23]]) and if I need to confirm that decision just say it. We must respect the opinion of the majority. As far as this case is concerned there will be no progress because one editor has this attitude I quote: "You are deleting other sources while putting new ones which go per your POV while watering down the issue (word Vlach had and has multiple meanings) and making a wast relativision. The idea is to delete any mention of Serbs, present it like they are some floating mass of Vlachs who were converted by the notorious Serbian Orthodox Church to become Serbs etc)." In that part of Croatia I do not know how many references mentione Serbs but when article is read I get impression that article is about Serbian statuts. In that part of Croatia there is information about mass migration of peoples(Croatian serfs) to Vlachs side(there are also mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Predavci etc) Catholics and Orthodox were also considered to be Vlachs there. In some books Serbs are not mentioned there. Name of the law is Statuta Valachorum and we in article read about Serbs. Someone earlier enter(edit) these claims in an article without consensus so it will be a big problem to correct it now, please help. Mikola22 (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2019 (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.

Tonalism

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have posted a brief overview on Tonnalism, or more precisely American Tonalism, based on the authoritative text on the subject: A History of American Tonalism, 1880 to 1920, Hudson Hills Press, cited in post. This book won major academic awards and is the best selling text in the field (Outstanding Academic Title, 2011, American Library Association). Another editor repeatedly removes my post claiming that the source of my citation is not good enough. My post represents a generally accepted overview of the subject by those in the field.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonalism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am not sure "Modernist" can be convinced of the legitimacy of the source cited, therefore protecting my post may be the best solution.

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.

Jennifer Freyd

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is refreshing an old discussion from the talk page from 2014 - an old accusation of childhood sexual abuse by her father - with citations from mainstream sources including the Baltimore Sun News and Stanford University Magazine. And as a result of these accusations, her parents disputed Freyd's claims of sexual assault, and then co-founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation - which had a large membership (and may have closed in 2019?). The editor in question appears to be editing both WP articles with primary sources and engaging in edit warring.

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

Talk:Jennifer Freyd

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Unclear how to proceed, the subject of the article's career was centered around childhood sexual abuse and it is published in mainstream sources, so it appears to be a non-controversial topic. The editor may have a COI or simply may be a new editor and not realize all of the mistakes made in their extensive edits? This article has a long history of COI edits however.

Summary of dispute by Senor Crocodile

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

I am grateful to Joojay for educating me, as a new contributor, on my errors, which were well-intentioned but ultimately not constructive. At this point, I better understand Wikipedia policy in terms of what is “fair game” regarding sensitive/“controversial” content on a living person’s Wikipedia page. I better understand how to engage more constructively in collaborative editing on matters of dispute.

Another contributor helpfully updated the False Memory Syndrome Foundation paragraph in a way that improves the accuracy of the content. I also added a notation about the dissolution of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as of Dec 31, 2019, citing a secondary source for this fact.

I think that these collective contributions have made the Wikipedia page more useful, accurate, and easy to read. I appreciate the patience and help from more experienced contributors/editors in helping me learn how to be a better Wikipedia contributor. Happy new year Senor Crocodile (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Freyd discussion

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

Volunteer comment – from reading Senor Crocodile's statement here, it is not clear that there is still a dispute to be resolved. I also see that another uninvolved editor has clarified policy matters on the talk page, so even if there is still a dispute I'm not sure that it's necessary or useful to hash it out here at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 2 January 2020 (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.

occupational stress

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

In the opening paragraph of the article there is a large heavily weighted section on various professionals who are involved in the area of occupational stress for some reason and this adds nothing to the article's quality. Nothing has been summarized either as far as what is actually in the article. I have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It says the lead should summarize the contents and main points. I have suggested getting rid of the section because it adds nothing to the article and there is no discussion at all about professionals who deal with occupational stress. So I've asked why is this section included and have been met with no real policy response. After circular heated discussion resolution is now required to cool things down as I want to resolve this.

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

Talk:Occupational stress

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Cool things down and add guidance.

Summary of dispute by Iss246

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

I have been editing the occupational stress encyclopedia entry since December 6, 2019. The entry was in poor shape when I started. Each day, I made a few edits. Then on December 27, Lightningstrikers came on the scene. He objected to my writing in the lede that occupational health psychology plays a major role in research on occupational stress. He asserted, without evidence, that clinical psychology and counseling psychology play a large role too. I have nothing against those to branches of psychology; I've published in clinical journals. But what Lightningstrikers claims is not true. Clinical psychology and counseling psychology have a played a small role in occupational stress research. I documented that small role in the End of Argument section of the occupational stress talk page. I also documented, in the slots provided, the reasons for additions I made to the occupational stress entry when I made those additions. I also cited a blog of a psychologist, well-known for his research in both i/o psychology and occupational health psychology, who indicated that it was a struggle to get the i/o psychology establishment to accept research on job stress.[1]

I also noticed something odd. I noticed that Lightningstrikers claimed to be a new member of WP. I remember when I was a new member. I was unsure of myself as an editor and unsure of what levers to pull. It took time for me to adapt to the WP environment. I really don't think he is a new member of WP because he demonstrated very quickly that he knew what levers to pull to try to undermine my edits. His MO is highly similar to an editor named Mrm7171 who was banned from WP in the context of a different, earlier set of assaults on my edits when those edits pertained to occupational health psychology. Iss246 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not Mr71! Also how do you explain the fact that you reverted edits at leat 14 times in a 24 hour period on the occupational stress article page yesterday. Did you not know that was edit warring? Lightningstrikers (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I hesitate to write here because the administrators want this section to be short. But because Lightning commented on what I wrote, I respond. We can look at the reversions another way. Lightning reverted my edits 14 times in 24 hours. Iss246 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that Lightning write comments in his own section, not here. I did not write that Lightningstrikers's MO resembles that of Mr71!. I wrote that his MO resembles that of Mrm7171. Iss246 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by CaroleHenson

I believe that the expressed issue is actually a minor one that I thought was best to take to WT:LEDE or the WP:Teahouse. There is a sentence about the extent or not occupational stress involves a number of disciplines. It may be that the sentence may have issues, but there have been a number of stated reasons for removing content from the Lede (not summarized in the Lede, not an international organization / viewpoint, questioned source, questioned meaning of the content from the source) and circling conversations (ask, answer given, ask again, etc.) meant we not only didn't get anywhere, but I think all parties became exhausted.

I think, though, this is really an ownership conflict between Iss246, who has contributed much of the article content for years -- and Lightningstrikers who has made edits, but not added much content, per page statistics. I am very uncertain and have tried to determine what exactly Lightningstrikers really wants. The focus on removing content - without getting into doing research to find sources to support content to add to the article or discuss why content should be removed makes consensus very difficult. Lightningstrikers ‎has been warned about making disruptive edits and removing or replacing cited content that they do not like by six or so users (as summarized here starting December 26, 2019, but seems to totally disregard.

An ANI issue was opened against Lightningstrikers, which is where I came in, but it seemed to be mostly a content dispute issue and/or a sockpuppet issue and administrators didn't address the issue. I think that if they continue the way that they are: wanting to delete content, not engaging or following advice for getting information elsewhere if they don't believe me, not providing sources for content addition or removal, and continuing to asks questions if they don't like the result doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Building an encyclopedia, but following some deep-seated objectives that are unclear to me.

I think that Lightningstrikers could benefit by finding a mentor, taking tutorials, or engaging with Teahouse or guideline talk pages to better navigate through Wikipedia editing, which is not always easy. It can be difficult. Absolutely.

It seems that mostly Iss246 has been worn down by the user and others who exhibited very similar behavior over a number of years. I think they could benefit, once constructive discussions may take place, from being open to compromise and work on consensus.

I am not sure what more you may need. If you want examples of attempts to communicate with Lightningstrikers, the best thing to do is to look at Talk:Occupational stress, but I am happy to get more detailed with specific diffs if that would help. Otherwise, I think it is better for Lightningstrikers to use other WP resources to get questions answered. I don't think they believe anything I have to say and has just become a migraine-producing enterprise that I would prefer not to be a part of.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate what user:CaroleHenson has written here. Iss246 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Instead of attacking me personally CaroleHenson how about work towards a solution. That is why I opened this here. Not to be further abused. You falsely stated the section of the lead in question was one sentence! It is hugely outweighing all other actual content in the article. Here it is,
"Although professionals in occupational medicine have been interested in occupational stress, the CDC indicates that the relatively new field of occupational health psychology is "all about" research and practice aimed at the prevention of "occupational stress, illness, and injury."[2] According to Paul Spector, other subdisciplines within psychology have been relatively absent from research on occupational stress.[3] Traditionally clinical psychology, counseling psychology, health psychology and industrial psychology have dealt with occupational stress at both the individual and organisational level.[citation needed] Other professions such as medicine and occupational hygiene also deal with occupational stress.[citation needed]"
This is the issue I have and CaroleHenson and Iss246 completely ignored discussing.Lightningstrikers (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

occupational stress discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It says, 'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer.' Stop the back-and-forth discussion that hasn't worked on the article talk page and isn't working here. Wait for a volunteer to ask for concise statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what CaroleHenson states the section is very large and completely outweighs all other actual content in the article. How an experienced editor could be fighting to keep a section like this in the lead when it is not even discussed in the article itself is beyond me. My understanding is based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Are we not supposed to summarise the key points in the article? The large chunk in the lead (see occupational stress) for yourself is 4 long sentences about topics that are not even actually covered in the article itself. Not "one sentence" as CaroleHenson stated misleadingly. I'm here to resolve the issue based on what guidelines tell us. Lightningstrikers (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

  • This is news to me. I never heard of a concern about the entire section, that the section is really large, outweighs all other content in the article, that there was a fight to keep the "section", or that there was concern about not having a summary.
I never disagreed that about the purpose of the LEDE. See here and here. I continually said it's about being an intro AND to summarize article information. These conversations occurred when you wanted to remove a sentence.
Do you have thoughts about how to resolve the issues that you have raised here?–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding the points you raised above in my statement section: This approach gets personal, I get that, but to really get to a resolution, it seems best to be forthcoming. It was the reason that I recommended that you reach out to someone at WP:LEDE or the teahouse to discuss your concerns and get advice / feedback from a disinterested party. Lots less drama that way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes I have a solution CaroleHenson. Get rid of this mess in the lead which is causing the problems and adhere to policy and guidelines instead of ignoring them as you told me to ignore policies and guidelines CaroleHenson. Sorry I won't ignore guidelines. It makes for a shit article doing so as is the case in the lead of the occupational stress article. There is no mention, let alone a summary, of each of the main points in the article. Instead for some strange reason you both want to keep the four very long sentences relating to professionals involved in the area. It is an international article. It is pointless continuing to argue over this. Again. There is no mention of the very long second paragraph of the lead in the article itself. Seems very fishy to me. I think there may be an agenda here particularly with Iss246. Also I'd really appreciate the two of you to stop attacking me and accusing me of being some other editor or some bullshit! Funny how you said CaroleHenson it was one sentence! And yes I certainly did bring up the undue weight issue with you CaroleHenson. Ridiculous saying I didn't when it's on the talk page. You were obviously not listening. Anyway we're here now. What do you think about getting rid of this section of the lead causing all the trouble if for no other reason that it is not mentioned at all in the article? Lightningstrikers (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers,
There is a lot here. I am going to address them one at a time, with a quote of what you posted:

Get rid of this mess in the lead which is causing the problems

There is no mention, let alone a summary, of each of the main points in the article.

What do you think about getting rid of this section of the lead causing all the trouble if for no other reason that it is not mentioned at all in the article?

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly. Are you offering to start a draft of the intro?

Instead for some strange reason you both want to keep the four very long sentences relating to professionals involved in the area.

Since this is the first time we are getting all your thoughts out about what you want done, I don't know how you can say that we are trying to keep an entire section.

and adhere to policy and guidelines instead of ignoring them as you told me to ignore policies and guidelines

There is no other way to say it. You are lying. I never said that you should ignore guidelines. I said you need to understand them better. Why would I recommend that you go to WT:LEDE a number of times if I was telling you to ignore them? Again, please see here and here.

Also I'd really appreciate the two of you to stop attacking me and accusing me of being some other editor or some bullshit!

Have I called out and warned you about disruptive editing and my frustration that we're not getting anywhere in conversations? Yes! Throwing out accusations, though, that I am making a personal attacks tells me that you don't understand the nature of what a personal attack and I find it very offensive that you would make such a claim. I have not called you names, used abusive language, etc.
Would you please read What is considered a personal attack on personal attacks and provide examples of how I am attacking you?
Please see Help:Diff for how to add a diff when you make a claim about what someone said.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And yes I certainly did bring up the undue weight issue with you CaroleHenson

Yes, you did bring up undue weight. But I told you I wasn't going to engage with you until you are willing to WP:LISTEN. I am exhausted by telling you the same thing over and over again. And, now you are lying about what I said. As I have said in my statement, since you are not listening to what I am saying... and are misconstruing here what I have said, I have no interest whatsoever to discuss the nature of guidelines with you. None. Zip. Zero. I have, though, given you resources to address the issues/questions. And, of course, we are here. If someone volunteers to take on this dispute, hopefully that will square away the discrepancies.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Added link to a how-to for diffs.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
How about focusing on a solution CaroleHenson and listening to other editors CaroleHenson. The section is not discussed in the article at all! Policy and guidelines say that we need to summarise the main points. Not hard. Follow policy. Delete the section. If you want to keep it then why CaroleHenson? Why do you think we should keep this section? Why please? Lightningstrikers (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers It seems that the solution you are looking for involves summarizing article content.
Did you read my response

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly.

There's a big disconnect between my reply and your reaction. Again, are you interested in drafting content for that? –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


Yes I did read your response. CaroleHenson why can't you answer the question about why you want this strange section in the article lead at all. Can you please answer that? Lightningstrikers (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The last 24 hours have been difficult
    • There has been no traction in even discussing Lightningstrikers ideas about improving the lede and adding summary of article content. It has been mostly a recycling of the same questions here, article talk page, and to a lesser extent my and their talk pages.
    • Instead, there is focus on a couple of sentences they don't want like the CDC statement, and the info from Spector - now stated as a need to remove the entire section. I think that there may be possible improvements that could be made to improve/edit those statements -- but it seems that they would rather fight about it being there than trying to find sources and solutions to improve it.
    • They also said that it would be good to have a section on the professions involved in OS [24], but have not provided any sources, thoughts, etc. to move that along. Same with improving the article to have a more global / international view. We discussed use of CDC (they don't like it even though the CDC has worked on global health for 60 years) and when I asked for other organizations doing groundbreaking or international work on OS, they only came up with WHO. I started a list of potential articles with two sources, they ended up without anything else productive to say and got back into questioning why anything from the CDC should be in this article [25]
    • There is dispute about the addition of uncited content that Lightningstrikers wishes to add (I think to refute the previous sentence by Iss246), but the content has been disputed and she/he are not coming up with sources to support their position. My viewpoint has evolved to "no sources, no addition of disputed content"
    • So, an edit war commenced of which each of us was involved, and was not helpful in the end. I think Iss246's point is that they have thoroughly addressed the issue with Lightningstrikers and mine is that until they get sources for the content, let's keep it out. Lightningstrikers returned the content stating that it is being discussed. But they have not responded constructively to move that discussion to a conclusion.
    • None of my suggestions for getting disinterested third party help to improve understanding of the guidelines and make traction on making helpful edits have been pursued. And, of course, that is their right. I am just speaking to motivation.
    • If there is not more productive conversation that involves supporting points with sources and working to improve the article, but remaining efforts to delete, replace or add disputed content (their modus operandi since they began editing), then I think that a topic ban or block should be pursued. There have been about six people that have warned this user about disruptive editing and edit warring here, here at ANI, here, here, here, [26], [27] Their focus is nearly singularly on this article [28] and the places where they appear to be adding content is disputed, uncited [29].–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding CareoleHenson! The 4 sentence section in the lead you are both hell bent on including is not even discussed in the article. I actually think it is promotional. I think Iss246 has a conflict of interest and his connections to occupational health psychology it seems. You CaroleHenson have not answered why you are including it? That would help a lot. You avoid questions. You CaroleHenson reverted 4 times in a 24 hour period edit warring, which both you and Iss246 should have known given your supposed experience on Wikipedia. The section in the lead about which professionals are best has no relevance to the actual article on occupational stress and the content in the article. The heavily overweighted section in the lead is undue and against policy. Including such a section in the lead contravenes guidelines. None of this has been addressed by you. Get rid of the damn section in the lead or explain the reason it is there. Lightningstrikers (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I have explained the issue thoroughly here and on the article talk page. I am not fighting to keep the section. It confounds me that I need to keep repeating

I think it would be great to have a draft of the intro that summarizes the article more thoroughly.

Deleting an entire intro, though, without working to have an intro that is workable makes no sense.
I addressed edit warring above and believe that I stated the issues that should have prevented edit warring, but you chose to ignore. i.e., you are the warring party because you are not engaging productively. As stated above, you have been warned about that a number of times by a number of users. I provided the diffs above. Also, please see this section about talk page use to avoid edit wars]], which I tried to do.
I am not going to engage with further conversation with you, particularly in your circular questions where if you don't like something you just keep asking questions and then claim I am not answering them. There is zero reason for me to continue to answer the same questions 'ad nauseum'.'
I underlined a bullet and points that I added. I didn't realize you were around (was adding them quickly)–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Lightningstrikers has said on the article talk page here that they need a break, which I totally get. But I hope that does not preclude addressing this dispute due to the amount of unproductive conversation and the reluctance of the user to work to improve the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
"Deleting an entire intro, though, without working to have an intro that is workable makes no sense". WTF. It is just the 4 sentences added a week ago by one editor that should not be in the lead at all. The rest of the lead should remain and then we summarize the main points in the article as guidelines tell us. You ignore that fact that you reverted 4 times in 24 hours but accuse me a new editor of misconduct! Ha! I was warned but I'm new here. Funny how such an experienced editor never mentioned this edit warring policy. Funny how such an experienced editor engaged in edit warring reverting 4 times in a 24 hour period CaroleHenson. Lightningstrikers (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Spector, P. (2019). What is occupational health psychology? [1]
  2. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Accessed December, 2019). Occupational Health Psychology (OHP). Atlanta: Author. [2]; also see Quick, J.C., & Henderson, D.F. (2016). Occupational Stress: Preventing Suffering, enhancing wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(5). doi:10.3390/ijerph13050459
  3. ^ Spector, P. (2019). What is occupational health psychology? [3]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:PhanChavez#New_User_Dispute_Resolution_Request

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

As a new user, I have undertaken some due-diligence, reading, review, trying to understand Wikipedia. The Dispute resolution process did not seem appropriate, so I followed the directions to post on my own talk page, with a "helpme" tag, to which I received the response: "Do not use the help me template for this. You can go to WP:DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)"

Interpretation: Follow dispute resolution procedures when admins, reviewers and editors do not take the time to fully review things, talk about it, and then when asking for help, be told that dispute resolution is needed, and so now I'm back here. Now it is well and truly out of my hands and understanding. (Circular on Wikipedia's part.)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhanChavez

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A suitable and in-depth explanation is provided on my own talk page. As well as Praxidicae's unhelpful "helpme" comment (circular, pointing right back here to dispute resolution). How you can help: Please provide an in-depth set of instructions (specific steps) about how I should proceed, such that I can (A) resolve this dispute cordially and meaningfully, and (B) see-through my initial AfC (without cursory dismissal).

Summary of dispute by Praxidicae

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

Summary of dispute by Robert_McClenon

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

I don't think that this is the sort of article content dispute that is normally addressed at this noticeboard. I think that the issue is that User:PhanChavez wants to create an article on Group of Five conferences, and I declined their draft at AFC because I said that they should discuss it at a talk page, and that now PhanChavez is running around to every forum that they can find asking for help. I think that what PhanChavez should do is to slow down, wait 48 hours, and then ask for advice at the Teahouse. I will allow another volunteer here either to accept this as a dispute or to close it or to take some other action. I don't think that this is the sort of article content dispute that is addressed here, but if another volunteer wants to moderate, I will listen and maybe comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cardsplayer4life_2ndverse

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

User talk:PhanChavez#New_User_Dispute_Resolution_Request discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cenk Uygur

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is about the addition of a "primary sources" tag to the Political Views section of the Cenk Uygur page. Originally I had cited many videos that were created by Uygur himself through his company's YouTube channel, but the content was taken down repeatedly by user Slywriter claiming an improper use of primary sources. Through talk pages Slywriter and I appeared to reach an agreement, but then a primary sources tag was added to the section by user wallyfromdilbert, even after my new edits were put in. The current disagreement is over whether there are too many primary sources used as references in the "Political Views" section. Specifically, I don't think we agree on how to classify a video published by a secondary source that contains footage of Uygur speaking. Is such a video a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his views, or a secondary source because it was produced and published by someone other than Uygur or his company?

Furthermore, I think there is a deeper disagreement on whether a subject's own expression of his opinions are considered more reliable/important than a second party's account of those same opinions. User wallyfromdilbert says on the talk page: "A reliable secondary source that includes quotes from Uygur means that an author has selected which quotes and views by Uygur are important and has been allowed to publish them by their publication's editors." To me, this means secondary sources are the gatekeepers with respect to which political views are worthy of representation on a person's Wikipedia page. To me this seems problematic; it means other people besides Cenk Uygur get to characterize what his political views are based on what they do and don't publish. For instance, many newspapers recently covered Bernie Sanders' retracted endorsement of Uygur over Uygur's past political views, but didn't give Uygur's current views for context. If newspapers are the arbiters, Uygur's past views appear to be his current ones.

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

Talk:Cenk Uygur#Political_Views_edit

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help resolve the dispute by providing clarity on the definition of a primary source. For instance, is a video of Cenk Uygur giving a speech at Oxford University and published by the Oxford Union a secondary source on Uygur's political views? Or is it a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his opinions directly?

Summary of dispute by wallyfromdilbert

This seems premature, given that the OP has left only 4 comments on the talk page. Only one other person has supported the idea that a whole section on political views can be sourced to primary sources, and none of the other participants on the article's talk page have been included in this DRN request.

To keep my response brief, interviews and speeches by an article subject seem obviously primary sources. They are even listed as examples in the WP:OR policy. Almost half the citations in the "political views" section are to the article subject's own website, which would be enough for the tag. However, most of the remaining ones are also primary sources, such interviews or speeches. Reliable sources should determine what is significant to include in an article (e.g., per WP:DUE), rather than the opinion of one editor. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pashtuns

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

We have now a issue in the Pashtuns page. First of all, there is a source which is this source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece

This source is about the "Pashtun" Hindu ladies of Quetta. The fellow Wikipedians I have mentioned used this source to say these are Pashtuns that are ethnically Pashtun and are Hindu. I had explained in the Talk page last year in 2019 February that this source was not right based on other sources given. I explained and cited them trustable sources showing that there is not such a thing as "ethnic" Pashtun Hindus as they are of Punjabi/Hindokwan/Sindhi Descent. So this source should be placed in the "Hindkowans" or "Hindki" pages as they are Pashto-speakers of Punjabi descent. So, if you are of (Hindu) Punjabi descent Pashto they call you indeed "Pashtun Hindu" or "Hindki" as they have the Pashtun culture and are billugal in Pashto. So therefore they should be not placed in the Pashtuns page. But Shashank did not agree with this in that time. As he said they are NOT of Punjabi descendancy but are 100% ethnically Pashtuns.

So we placed with the help of other users the source as Disputed-Discussable (No reaction on neither side). Now 1 year later I finally found a source that is actually coming from the ladies themselves. https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/

Citation: “I was unaware of my identity as a Hindu Pashtun for the longest time. In Indian society, people are categorised on the basis of their caste and religion very early. To somehow adhere to the mainstream brackets of caste and religion my ancestors identified themselves as Punjabi I grew up thinking that I was a Punjabi,” says Shilpi.

As you can see, after one year. I found a source that they say they are of Punjabi ancestry. But they are indeed "Pashtun" Hindus but of Punjabi ancestry also called Hindki or Hindkowans.



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

Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As the other Party does not want to click on the source and accept that they are of Punjabi ancestry. Just see whether it is about the same ladies and if they are really indeed of Punjabi descent or not.

Here is the old source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece

Here is the new source found by me this year: https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/

Summary of dispute by Shashank5988

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

Summary of dispute by Aman.kumar.goel

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

Pashtuns discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Comment - I would suggest that the discussion is continued on the talk page of the article in question due to the fact that that discussion is not very lengthy at all. Casperti, I would suggest that you try to form some sort of compromise with the other ediors on the talk page, as it appears that you are the only one arguing your point currently, leading me to believe that consensus is currently against you. - A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 13:11, 11 January 2020 (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.

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

When I expanded a section called "Relationship to NRC" under Analysis of this Act, the opposing party reverted the edit. On the talk page he listed three objections to the new content: (1) that it incorporated opinion, not fact (2) that it contained original research and (3) that I deleted the old content without explanation. I did not agree that any of these objections was accurate. (1) The content was sourced to a leading national newspaper's "Explained" column; (2) my content accurately summarised the source; (3) I expanded the old content rather than deleting it. The talk page discussion did not produce any agreement. Rather the opposing party seemed to go off on extraneous tangential issues.

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

Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019#Latest "Relationship to NRC" edit violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:SYNTHESIS

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us reach an agreement

Summary of dispute by Kmoksha

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

Kautilya3`s proposal for expanding "Relationship of CAA to NRC" has not been discussed properly on the Article Talk page. Neither is there any consensus for that proposal on the Article Talk page. Other editors are opposing this proposal saying it violates Wikipedia policies. So, Dispute Resolution is premature. First, proper discussion at the Article Talk page must be done.

The Nationwide NRC full details have not been yet declared but Kautilya3 had claimed that full Nationwide NRC rules were published in 2003. But when Kauliya3 was asked that "for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India." He has not even responded to that yet.

Further, Kautilya3 has not given any reference of a wikipedia policy for his claims that everything written in an "explainer article" can be presented as factual in the Wikipedia article and written in Wikipedia`s voice. And the content of "Explainer article" and content of other sources referenced by Kautilya3 are inconsistent with the proposed content for the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoksha (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 discussion

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

Kmoksha, a DRN moderator will be able to check the talk page discussion that has been referenced, and make a judgement as to whether enough discussion has happened or not. The kind of question you have asked is exactly what I feel are "extraneous tangential issues". So, I think it will be fruitful to have the discussion in the presence of a moderator. The policy issue is not clear-cut: the specific content needs to be evaluated as to whether it forms "news" content or "opinion" content, which also could use the help of a moderator. You are welcome to decline of course. But please keep in mind that it will reflect badly on your conduct if you do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, I am Nightenbelle and I'm going to volunteer for this one such as it is. I have to agree that this Request is quite pre-mature. Other interested parties on the article have just joined the discussion, and from what I can see there is a pretty good consensus going right now that the changes are not appropriate at this time. I am completely unfamiliar with the issue or the subject of the article, but I see three people explaining why the information should not e included and one person saying it should. If anything- I would do a Request for Comments if you want more input, but the journey towards consensus seems to be going well on the Talk page, so unless something new/different is added in the next day or so here, I would recommend closing the dispute until more discussion was had on the talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And as I was typing, more information/issues were added so... please go ahead and discuss and Kautilya3 please remember participation here is voluntary and they are free to participate or not as they wish and this does not reflect badly on them. I am a neutral moderator, and happy to be such, but Kmoksha has the right to participate or not. Antagonizing them is not going to help the matter.Nightenbelle (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle I oppose such bypassing of discussion at the Article Talk page. You can see other editors at the Article Talk Page have opposed Kautilya3`s proposal and they have not been invited here. Besides, at the Talk page more editors would be likely to give their opinions on that proposal. So, when the moderator himself is saying that he is not familiar with the subject of the article and since the discussion at Article Talk Page has not been done properly, Dispute Resolution is completely premature. I would like that the discussion continue at the Article Talk page -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmoksha I am unfamiliar with the topic of the article, I did read all of the discussion on the talk page before commenting. I'm sorry I did not make that clear. Discussion here is not intended to bypass talk page discussion at all, but rather to allow an uninvolved person to moderate. If you do not want a moderator/Dispute resolution, you are free to decline. But you are correct that all involved parties should be invited here before a discussion takes place. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle I am declining Dispute Resolution since other editors at Article Talk page who expressed their opinions at the Article Talk page are not able to participate. So, Dispute Resolution is premature, discussion should take at the Article Talk page where other editors can participate. Thanks. --- Kmoksha (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
THats fine. I will close. Although- they CAN participate, but they should have been invited in the first place.Nightenbelle (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2020 (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 Gentlemen (2019 film)

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.


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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I can't understand how the genre for this film is being presented as an action genre film, where it is has been presented as quite clearly a crime comedy. The film is comedic throughout the whole way through and is very much similar to Guy Ritchie's early work of Lock, Stock and Snatch which are both presented as crime comedies. There is very little to no action in the film apart from a couple of fight scenes that don't take up majority of the film. It is more of a crime comedy then it is a action crime as this would notably take away the fact of what is should be represented as. In almost all film reviews and interviews the genre's are stated including those with Ritchie himself and his producers who credit it as such. No one will answer on the talk page and even if i add references which are credible.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Gentlemen_(2019_film)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I just want a little clarification on this issue, and understand why the genre which it is, is not being presented as such, and why we can't come to a compromise.

Summary of dispute by 77survivor

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

Summary of dispute by CodexJustin

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

The Gentlemen (2019 film) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chapter 1: The Mandalorian

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.


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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

In television, a "guest star" is a large role which appears in multiple scenes, but is not a series regular. A "co-star" is a small role that usually only has a few lines. These are well-documented definitions. (Sources listed below) On each of The Mandalorian episode pages' sidebars, these labels are currently used incorrectly -- the guest stars are labeled as co-stars and vice versa. I corrected this on each episode page. These edits were reverted by user Cardei012597 who claimed the edits don't "benefit or enhance the quality of The Mandalorian episode pages." To me, correcting what is objectively a mistake does "benefit and enhance" the quality of the pages.

Sources: 

https://www.centralcasting.com/different-tv-types-of-acting-roles/
https://www.castittalent.com/blog/2013/06/extras-co-stars-and-guest-stars-whats-what/
https://tophollywoodactingcoach.com/2014/05/difference-film-television-credits/

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

[30] [31]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If you look at my sources, I think you'll see that the Mandalorian pages currently contain errors that are easily fixable. I'm not sure why user Cardei012597 refuses to allow the corrections.

Summary of dispute by Cardei012597

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

Chapter 1: The Mandalorian discussion

Hi, I'm Nightenbelle and I'm going to close this dispute. 1 comment each on a talk page (and duplicating the same comments on a user talk page does not constitute an attempt to resolve on your own. Please engage in discussion on the article talk page first before requesting dispute resolution. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (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.

Martin Heidegger

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Content issues:

  • There is a live scholarly debate as to how much Heidegger's Nazism influenced his philosophy. At present his Nazism isn't getting much attention, which we (Sbelknap and I) think favours one side of the debate by default.
  • Heidegger is notorious for his obscure writing; again we believe this is downplayed on the page as it is.
  • The sections explaining Heidegger's philosophy do not meet Wikipedia's standards of legibility.

Wikipedia policy issues that have arisen:

  • Each time anyone alters the balance of the existing page on these issues, they are reverted and told to get consensus first. Is this appropriate?
  • We have presented multiple secondary sources and some tertiary sources for our points of view. All of them have been rejected as not good enough. Lately we're being told that only tertiary sources are acceptable.
  • Our opponents do not engage with our counter-arguments but merely tell us that we are wrong.
  • When we summarize the information in our sources we are told they don't represent the opinions of the writers; when we quote them directly we are told that direct quotes are inappropriate.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please give guidance on the policy issues outlined above: are we "breaching consensus" or are our opponents enforcing a pseudo-consensus? Are the sources we have consulted inadequate or poorly summarized?

—Note: I will be away from the internet over New Year for nearly a week, starting from tomorrow. Letting other parties know now so that you know I'm not refusing to participate in the discussion. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please advise as to whether the Martin Heidegger article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism ought to be merged. It would be very helpful if editors with experience on biographies of other Nazi philosophers/pedagogues could opine here. These would include:

Sbelknap (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sbelknap

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

•There is a serious problem with POV, where some editors remove material that casts Heidegger in a negative light. This ought be a biography not a hagiography. Instead, this biography has been split into one article about Martin Heidegger the Good and a separate article Martin Heidegger the Terrible. These two articles ought to be merged into a single article, as this would assist the reader seeking information about Heidegger. The splitting off of Martin Heidegger and Nazism into a separate article is the phenomenon that gets to the heart of the problem.

•Some philosophers and scholars (particularly the analytically-oriented) hold that Heidegger's philosophy is mere wordplay, or is so obscure as to be incomprehensible, or is nonsensical. These critiques ought to be addressed in a new section, rather than in the fragmentary fashion seen in the current article.

•There is substantial recent scholarship about Heidegger's Nazism and anti-semitism that is not given due weight in the current Martin Heidegger article. Attempts to correct this deficiency are reverted or edited away. There is a long-standing history of Heidegger apologism, going back to the French existentialists.[1] The availability of Heidegger's Black Notebooks and of the correspondence between the Heidegger brothers, Martin and Fritz, has made it clear that Heidegger's Nazism was not a passing fancy related to his rectorship, but instead was an essential part of his world view. There also is scholarship that finds Nazism and anti-semitism to be at the core of Heidegger's philosophy. Thus, these several schools of thought ought be given due weight.

•Heidegger's romantic and sexual relationship with Hannah Arendt contributes to his notability, though less so than his philosophy or his Nazism/anti-semitism. This deserves its own section in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Snowded

Per the discussion below, I am prepared to participate and will state a position of other editors agree to do the same -----Snowded TALK 07:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Freeknowledgecreator

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

I only intend to participate here if, at minimum, a majority of the editors listed decide to participate. Otherwise I will not bother. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

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

I don't have a problem with the arguments of the other side, except that I think that the proper article for their edits is Martin Heidegger and Nazism instead of Martin Heidegger. So, they seek to edit the wrong article. Oh, yeah, I got bored by being called a Heidegger apologist. As for his philosophy being "nonsense", analytic philosophers will say that about any "continental" philosophy, except perhaps Aristotle.

Only two persons understand my book Science of Logic: me and my dear God. After I die there will be only one person left to understand it.

— G.W.F. Hegel

Quoted from memory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

As per User:Epinoia below, who has summed it up very well. I would add that there has also been far too much debate over what should appear in the lead section, to the detriment of fixing what's in the main body. The lead section is supposed to simply summarize what's in the entire article, which should be in good shape first. Heidegger was notable for being a philosopher, not for being a Nazi. His supposed anti-Semitism is at odds with his relationship with Hannah Arendt. I also think the proposed merging of the main article with Martin Heidegger and Nazism would be a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Epinoia

There has been a concerted effort on the part of two editors to characterize Heidegger's philosophy as nonsense and to maximize his Nazi associations and present his work as not philosophy but hate speech. These are extreme positions not in keeping with a neutral point of view and are based on minor sources and fringe sources, such as Faye, and not on mainstream academic scholarship. Most reliable sources agree that "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), so his work is demonstrably not nonsense. Heidegger's Nazism is well represented as it is noted in the lead and in the article sections "Heidegger and the Nazi Party" and "The Farías debate" as well as in the content fork article "Martin Heidegger and Nazism". - Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Martin Heidegger discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please refrain from back and forth discussion at this time
While an assessment of the consensus of the existing discussion would be helpful, we need still more a determination on what constitutes a "consensus" – we're being told that, since we came along later and changed the page from what it was before, we're "breaching consensus". —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
While implicit consensuses can be formed purely through editing the page, the kind of lasting consensus that would justify reverting edits for breaching consensus is only going to be formed through talk page discussion. If the most recent discussion does not display a clear consensus, then either having an uninvolved editor close the discussion and determine its outcome, or convening an RfC to attract other editors to the discussion and hopefully result in a clearer consensus, are two natural next steps to take. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
We've had other editors come in from outside and comment. They found the same thing we have – that the party opposed to us refuse to engage with their arguments and continue to revert our edits in the name of consensus. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
From looking through the archived discussions, I see two camps of editors, roughly equal in number, that either want to include more discussion of Heidegger's Nazi affiliations in the lead, or that want to keep the status quo. None of these discussions resulted in a clear consensus for adding more information about Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, so for the time being the defenders of the status quo are correct that the pre-existing consensus stands. Both sides have made numerous arguments, and essentially seem to be going in circles in later discussions. While no one appears to have been persuaded away from their original positions, it doesn't appear that this is due to people not understanding each other's arguments, nor does it appear to be due to people failing to argue over the correct issues that are central to the discussion.
Thus, at this time my assessment is that if editors who want to change the status quo want to pursue their case further, an RfC where everyone briefly restates their strongest argument and allows for outside editors to weigh in is the best way to achieve a consensus. I am skeptical that DRN will be of much use, as it is most useful in cases where there are either so many issues being discussed at once that people lose track of which arguments need to be made, or in cases where one or more parties is having difficulty understanding the other side's arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm less sure on the RfC route. If you take a look at the section OK its time to talk and the first question I made an attempt to deal with the problem in smaller units. The first and easiest was if the primary notability of Heidegger was as a philosopher or not. I thought this would be simple and we could then look at if his membership of the Nazi party was treated proportionally with due attention to weight, then onto how to deal with the current controversy over the degree to which his philosophy was influenced by anti-Semitism and so on. As with every other discussion we ended up stalled with five editors (Tgeorgescu, Epinoia, MartinEvants, Freeknowledgecreator and myself) pointing out that all identified Third-party sources (other physical and online encyclopedias)devote maybe one paragraph to the Nazi Party membership in several pages. In contrast, the other two editors arguing that it was equally valid to use selective quotations from primary sources to determine the question.

To that we can note:

  • seven involved editors is a lot for a philosophy article so a more or less continuous majority of five to two is significant and is a consensus
  • of those five editors the majority edit over multiple philosophy articles while the two are more or less SPAs on a mission to right great wrongs
  • despite the fact that no one disagrees that he was a member of the Nazi Party and anti-Semitic we get continuous personal attacks and innuendo suggesting some type of conspiracy to hide this. This doesn't help
  • we can never move on because our two minority editors will never accept a consensus so the article is not developing with the sort of open discussion we need
  • there is a separate article on Heidegger as a Nazi which deals with that subject. This article is about Heidegger the founder of existentialism and per ALL Third-Party sources identified to date one of the major figures in modern philosophy if not of all time. This wikipedia article plays more emphasis on the Nazi issue that any of the third party sources we have discovered todate.

So I am not clear that an RfC could be formulated or a result would be accepted. I think, if we are to avoid ANI, that we need some mediation of the process to agree on a way forward, or at a minimum for formulating maybe two or three RfCs from a neutral perspective. I will say, from well over a decade of editing many Philosophy articles that RfCs do not attract significant numbers of other editors.

Sbelknap and VeryRarelyStable are knowledgeable editors with a particular perspective on this subject, but unless there is some mediation of process and agreement on who to resolve disputes this is going now where and while a few RfCs might be a part of the solution they are not the solution -----Snowded TALK 06:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I see your case. If enough parties are interested in participating in this discussion, I am willing to moderate. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks I'll encourge the others to accept - and congratulations on aquiring the mop :-)-----Snowded TALK 07:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I need hardly point out we have a different perspective.
  • We feel the question "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher or a Nazi?" is a false binary. We feel that, given the debate in present scholarship, "Both" is the most appropriate option. When we responded to the "Philosopher or Nazi?" question with "Why not both?" the reply was "Look, can we just agree the answer is 'Philosopher' and move on to the next point?" Speaking for myself, this felt like an attempt to railroad the discussion to a predetermined conclusion.
  • A point of contention for some time was a quote in the article lede which to us appeared to be unbalanced. It described Heidegger as an "important" philosopher, but was excerpted from a sentence describing him as both "important" and "controversial"; we believed the quote should include both. Edits to that end were repeatedly reverted – until another editor, new to the page, changed it to include the fuller sentence but also at the same time made the reference to Heidegger's Nazism in the lede much less direct. That inclusion of the full quote was suddenly acceptable, while attempts to restore the direct statement about Heidegger's Nazism (which we had agreed on some months before) were now repeatedly reverted. We find it difficult to explain this change of tack except on the hypothesis that someone has an agenda to place a sinking lid on the notability of Heidegger's Nazism. It is not the only edit that is easiest to explain on that hypothesis, but it is the one that is hardest to explain on any other hypothesis. This is the "innuendo suggesting some type of conspiracy" that Sbelknap refers to.
I have let pass content decisions of greater import that I disagreed with on other articles. Indeed, it so happens that the current lede does have the direct statement of Heidegger's Nazism. What concerns me is that it appears, based on the Talk discussion and the edit history, that a couple of editors here have discovered a simple strategy to keep the article the way they want it: revert edits, repeat assertions in the Talk page, and prevent a consensus from forming at any other position. I therefore fear that once we have rein to edit again, that direct statement may soon disappear.
I say "a couple of editors". One editor in particular does most of the reverting. One other takes charge of the Talk discussions when these issues are raised and repeats the same points at us. A third argues earnestly that Heidegger was not in fact a Nazi. The remaining two of the five that I have listed here just pitch in at times to support them.
(When the debate shifts from Nazism to whether the philosophical sections need to be made more readable, for the most part the same parties form, but Epinoia in particular has been more sympathetic to us on that issue and helped out with untangling some of the dense prose. Still, we get the same editor reverting most of our edits. The objections we've been given to making these sections readable tend to waver between "It's already readable" and "It's Heidegger, it can't be made readable". On this issue I have no problem with the content of the sections at all, except that I can't make head or tail of what that content actually is.)
We have had a couple of editors – Chumchum7 and TonyClarke – come by and try and help us sort things out. TonyClarke basically suggested what our side already wants: that the article should reflect the controversy in Heidegger scholarship. Chumchum7 tried to help us unknot the comprehensibility issue, pointed out that the lede should mention any notable controversies, and found the same frustration we were finding with the person who kept reverting things. There have also been a few other editors over time who have made edits, had them reverted, and disappeared again.
At this point the article, and the lede in particular, has been pushed and pulled back and forth so much that it no longer makes very much sense. That's why I don't think just letting things lie as they've fallen is going to be a viable option in the long term. I agree on this at least: we need some form of mediation.
Let me mention again: I'm going to be away from the internet for about a week over New Year, and won't be able to reply here. Please don't take my silence as an indication that I'm not interested in reaching a resolution.
—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making back and forth arguments at this time. There is no need for any rebuttals just yet. Happy new year to all and we'll resume this in 2020 if enough of the involved editors wish to participate. signed, Rosguill talk 08:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I invited both TonyClarke and Chumchum7 to this -----Snowded TALK 08:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I have looked over this dispute and I see that User:Rosguill has already addressed it (although not yet marked the case as being discussed), but I will comment anyway. It appears that the focus of the discussion should be on formulating one or more Requests for Comment, because this seems to be a case where the opinions are sufficiently well-established and disparate that there isn't likely to be a compromise. If the purpose of the discussion is to formulate the RFC or RFCs clearly, then I offer my thanks and support to User:Rosguill, and think that I will take part in the matter as an editor. If anyone thinks that persuasion is likely to avoid the need for an RFC, then I wish that I could be that optimistic. Thank you, Rosguill. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
My view is that there has to be a mediated pre-process before we get the RfCs or the whole sorry saga will just carry on repeating itself. At the moment we have the assertion that selections of primary sources have equal value with third-party sources such as other encyclopedias. The most recent attempt to isolate an issue (if the primary notability was as a philosopher) produced a unanimous conclusion from all third party sources that he was and five of the participating editors in agreement. Two refused to accept that consensus and move on to the next subject. The assertion of those two editors is that they represent wikipedia policy. Independent formulation of RfCs will help but there first needs to be clear criteria established/explained/agreed. Just look at the history here! -----Snowded TALK 06:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I have, by now, grown used to being misrepresented in this discussion, but for the benefit of outsiders let me reiterate a couple of things:
  • We are asserting that secondary sources, not primary sources, are of similar value to tertiary sources.
  • The "primary notability" dispute is not about "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher first and something else second, or as something else first and as a philosopher second?"; it's about "Is Heidegger's philosophy primarily notable as philosophy simpliciter, or is its alleged connection with his Nazi politics the primary aspect of its notability?" That is to say, "Is Heidegger notable as a philosopher or as a Nazi philosopher?"
  • Heidegger scholars themselves do not agree as to the above question; we read Wikipedia policy as therefore saying that the article should reflect the debate in scholarship rather than picking a side.
—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I will advise the two editors who want a discussion in order to change the consensus that the use of DRN as a way for a minority of editors to bludgeon a discussion is marginally permitted by Wikipedia policy but very unlikely to be effective. The most likely result is that it will not change anything, but will result in the one or two editors acquiring reputations for being combative. The next most likely result is that discussion will fail, and will go to WP:ANI, and one or more editors will be topic-banned. The third most likely result is that the article will be changed to reflect the viewpoint that had been the minority. If the two editors still want to proceed, there is a mediator ready to work on the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion to seek comment from other editors did not originate with those in the minority. We were repeatedly advised by some in the majority to seek such counsel. My understanding is that the desire for assistance from other editors is not limited to the minority. If you can help all of us improve this article, that would be great, and I would be appreciative of this.Sbelknap (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I concur. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What about other editors that have previously made contributions to the Martin Heidegger article, such as @Process2, @JonathanMarkOfVirginia, @Eitje01, @Jmg38, @PaulBommel, and others? Would it be reasonable to also invite them to this discussion? Sbelknap (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap, DRN is a voluntary process, and other editors may participate if they wish. That having been said, things do get a bit unwieldy when many editors are involved, so if those editors have not been involved in the most recent dispute, I'm not sure it's useful to invite them at this time. My guess is that going through DRN will likely result in us still not having a consensus, but having a clearer idea of the core issues and arguments, such that an RfC can be easily drafted. Other editors who have edited the article in the past may find it more fruitful to join once the RfC is underway. signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable, it is the new year and I see that you are back online. Are you ready for this DRN process to begin? signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought it had already begun. I haven't been involved in a DRN process before, I thought this was it. Yes, I'm ready. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) First statement by moderator

Ok, in that case I think that we're ready to begin. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from making any edits to Martin Heidegger that relate to the issues at hand while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior.


Sbelknap, Snowded, Freeknowledgecreator, Tgeorgescu, Epinoia, Martinevans123 VeryRarelyStable, could each participant please state below, in one paragraph or less, what they want changed in the article or the specific changes to the article that they oppose, as well as a brief justification? If your position does not significantly differ from a position that someone else has already written in their first statement, please just state that. signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) First statements by participants

  • Martin Heidegger is notable for being a philosopher AND for being a Nazi. There is a large and growing body of high-quality secondary sources that rely on Heidegger's Schwarze Hefte and correspondence between Martin Heidegger and his brother Fritz[2] that bear on Heidegger's Nazism and evidence that his Nazism influenced his philosophy. Currently, the Heidegger biography in wikipedia has been split into two articles, Martin Heidegger and Martin Heidegger and Nazism. This split into two separate articles is emblematic of the problem, as the edit history for the Martin Heidegger articles shows a concerted effort to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. My contention, which is supported by extensive published scholarly works, is that Heidegger's notability is due to BOTH his philosophy AND his Nazism. The problem would be best resolved (in my view) by merging these two articles into one, by updating content in the new article to reflect secondary sources that describe the relation between his Nazism and his philosophy, and by emphasizing that all editors respect the guidelines and rules that govern wikipedia editing. Sbelknap (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • All the reliable third party sources (encyclopedias etc.) I have researched acknowledge that Heidegger was a Nazi, generally in one paragraph, with many many paragraphs talking about him as the founder of existentialism. The balance of the current article places greater emphasis on his Nazism than those sources but I don't advocate changing that aspect. However the attempts to emphasis it and give it equal status I oppose and also the merging of the articles. The third-party sources also say that his Nazism arose from his dislike of Industrialism in the US and Soviet Union; we do need to add in that dislike as that is sourced and important. There is a group of writers who feel that his Philosophy was influenced by antisemitism. That is a view we should report (no one has opposed doing that) but it is by no means a universal view and is opposed so we can't endorse it with Wikipedia's voice. He was an incompetent Nazi and if he hadn't been the founder of existentialism no one would know who he was and he would not have a Wikipedia page. We also need respect for Wikipedia process, if five editors agree on something against two, then the two should accept it or call an RfC not persist in the argument. The personal attacks and innuendo have got to stop although that might be a separate matter for ANI. TALK 06:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It obviously is not true that "Heidegger was notable for being a Nazi". That is a nonsensical statement, given that many, many Nazis are of course totally obscure individuals with no claim to being important historical figures. As such, nobody is notable simply for having been a Nazi. Oppose any edits made on the basis of the false suggestion that Heidegger was notable for being a Nazi. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I endorse Sbelknap's suggestions, including merging the two articles. If that is deemed unsuitable then there needs to be more content in the present article detailing the debate concerning how much Heidegger's philosophy reflected his commitment to Nazism. Of course one side of the debate is the view that they are unrelated, and I would want to see fair representation of that side's arguments just as I would for the side that claims they are intimately connected. I just don't want that side to be presented as the winner by default. On the second head of disagreement – what Heidegger's philosophy actually means and how we can summarize it in language of an appropriate reading level – we obviously need a Heidegger expert's help interpreting it; unfortunately (as one finds with experts in any field) those who have tried to help so far underestimate the difficulty non-experts have with the technicalities that are familiar to them. At the very least, I would like the "incomprehensible" tags I put on the Philosophy sections to remain there until they really are readable to a non-expert; and when we non-experts try to reword parts of them and get the substance wrong, I would like some guidance asking the experts to rewrite those parts to be both correct and readable rather than reverting it to the allegedly correct but unreadable existing text. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Martin Heidegger is most notable as a philosopher as evidenced by the large number of Heidegger scholars listed in Category:Heidegger scholars, the number of prominent people he influenced (see article info box), and sources such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which states that he had "a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy." His influence would not have been so extensive if he were primarily a Nazi philosopher. This also contradicts the claim his work is nonsense, as no one writing nonsense would have such a wide influence. Other similarly controversial figures, such as Ezra Pound (a fascist and traitor), Gertrude Stein (worked for the Vichy government), E.E. Cummings (a racist), Allen Ginsberg (a pedophile), are all known primarily for their contributions in their respective fields; this same weighting applies to Heidegger. (WP:WEIGHT) Heidegger's Nazi affiliations are well covered in the article in the lead and the sections "Heidegger and the Nazi Party" and "The Farías debate". I oppose the merging of the content fork article "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" as it would make the main article too long. "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" is one of many content fork articles on Heidegger, such as Heideggerian terminology, Dasein, Thrownness, Being and Time, etc. Content forking is an acceptable, and often encouraged, way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. (WP:CFORK) There is controversy over how much Heidegger's Nazism influenced his work. As the controversy is ongoing, it should be noted in the article without taking sides or giving prominence to fringe views in keeping with a neutral point of view. - Epinoia (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) Second statement by moderator

In people's first statements, most editors have focused on the issue of whether the articles Martin Heidegger and Martin Heidegger and Nazism should be merged. Some other suggestions, such as simplifying the article's prose, have also been suggested. For the sake of streamlining this discussion, I would propose that we focus on the question of whether or not to merge the articles; questions of reading level can be resolved afterward, although those issues would ideally be best resolved just by making appropriate copy edits where possible, rather than through a formal discussion.

VeryRarelyStable and Sbelknap have advocated merging the articles. However, they have not specified exactly which content should be merged. Could these two editors please clarify whether they think that the entire content of the two articles should be merged, or whether there are only specific sections or claims in the Nazism article that need to be merged, as well as whether there is any information in the main article that they feel should be cut to accommodate the merge? I would note that the current revisions of both these articles are around 60k characters long. WP:SIZERULE states that even articles with 60k characters of prose should probably be divided, whereas articles with >100k characters should almost certainly be divided. As this is a guideline, there is room to argue against its recommendation, but given that editors advocating for a merge are already in the minority, I think the likelihood of the community forming a consensus in favor of a complete merge is very low. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As an addendum, it would appear that the current section on Nazism in Martin Heidegger is about 10.5k characters long and the lead of Martin Heidegger and Nazism is about 2k characters long, so a total merge of the two articles that replaces the existing content of the existing Nazism section with the non-redundant content of the Nazism article would likely result in an article with about 108k characters of prose. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


(Heidegger) Clarifying comments from pro-merge editors

Wikipedia biographies of modern intellectuals are often (usually?) longer than 100K, because we have their works, their influence on other intellectuals, and the course of their lives to consider. The biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein is 135K (exclusive of citations and bibliography), and is better written than the Heidegger article. If one reads the wikipedia biographies of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Rawls, Russell, Quine, Sartre and others, it seems unreasonable to compress these biographies of philosophers to 60K or even 100K.

I propose merging the Martin Heidegger article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism article into a single Martin Heidegger article. There is some overlap between the two articles, so simply adding up the number of characters in the two articles to estimate the length of the combined text is not reasonable. I expect we would all agree with VeryRarelyStable that neither general readers nor scholars will find much of use in the description of Heidegger's philosophy in the current article. It would benefit from the same concision that is found in wikipedia biographies of other prominent philosophers. Based on my reading of both Heidegger articles, I expect that the merged Martin Heidegger article would be about 110K in length, after concision of bloat and duplication plus addition of material on Nazism.

Finally, several engaged editors assert that tertiary sources give short shrift to Heidegger's Nazism, but what they cite are encyclopedias of philosophy in support of this assertion. Britannica and other general interest encyclopedias devote more than a single paragraph to Heidegger's Nazism. I would suggest that biographical encyclopedias would be more relevant as tertiary sources than encyclopedias of philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would reiterate that some scholars believe Heidegger's philosophy and his Nazism are intimately connected. There's a range of positions on the topic but at least some would hold that either the philosophy was devised to justify the Nazism, or the Nazism was an expression of the philosophy. Once again, no-one wants Wikipedia to present these positions simply as the fact of the matter; the point is that, since this is a live controversy in scholarship, we don't believe their negation should be presented simply as the fact of the matter either (you may note above that at least one of the opposing party does want precisely that).
The reason why I'm belabouring this point, having made it before, is that the current split between, effectively, a Heidegger's philosophy article and a Heidegger's Nazism article does give the misleading impression that it is already settled that the two are unconnected except for the coincidence of involving the same individual. And it's not just that it gives the impression; it's that it makes it hard to discuss the connections that some scholars allege between the two, because if you're discussing it in the Philosophy article you have to import a bunch of the Nazism stuff for background, and if you're discussing it in the Nazism article you have to import a bunch of the Philosophy stuff for background.
In the interests of fairly presenting both sides of a live controversy, therefore, as Wikipedia policy recommends, I would ideally like to see the two articles merged, with some telescoping of both. Failing a merger, this article should have a few sentences inserted in the Philosophy sections at appropriate points to say something along the lines of "Some scholars argue that Heidegger's Nazism influenced his concept of [X] in the following way... Other scholars dispute this on the grounds that..." And then, if possible, a one-sentence summary of these disputes in the lede, to follow the one about "there is controversy regarding the degree to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy".
—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) Third statement by moderator

Thank you for the clarifications. In order to more clearly establish what the appropriate amount of weight for Nazi-related content is, I think it would be helpful if people could provide citations to reliable sources covering Heidegger's career as a whole (whether focusing on his biography or on the body of his work, but preferably not sources that focus on a singular concept from Heidegger's philosophy), with a brief summary stating what proportion of the cited source is spent on Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, and also what proportion is spent on the influence of Nazism in Heidegger's philosophy relative to coverage of his philosophy as a whole. I think that it could also be pertinent to provide citations to newer literature with a narrower focus, if there is reason to believe that this reflects a new consensus about the relative importance of Nazism in Heidegger's work that may not be reflected in older publications.

Additionally, I would ask anti-merge editors to comment on whether VeryRarelyStable's suggestion in the final paragraph of the above section is an acceptable compromise. This does not preclude further discussion of the matter as a whole, I just want to get a sense of where people stand on possible compromises. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


I see no real justification for a merge. The "both sides of a live controversy" should be covered in Martin Heidegger and Nazism with adequate signposting from all of the relevant sections in Martin Heidegger. That article is titled Martin Heidegger not "Philosophy of Martin Heidegger", so there needs to be some overlap with Martin Heidegger and Nazism. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) Collection of sources for assessment of due weight

Critical Horizons 19:4 entire issue on Heidegger & Nazism (link here is to editor's introduction)[3]

  • Encylopedia Brittania and this article have 20% of the content referencing Nazi aspects but Brittania doesn't have an additional article on Nazism. If we combine the two and assume considerable pruning then Wikipedia is well over 30%, well out of alignment with other third-party sources. Worst still when you see that Stanford and the Oxford Companion have only 3% and 2% respectively. Stanford also argues that people should recognize him as a philosopher and stop trying to link everything to Nazism. -----Snowded TALK 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Great Thinkers Biography has more emphasis on Nazism. [4]

(Heidegger) Anti-merge editors' response to VeryRarelyStable's compromise suggestion

  • The assertion by some authors that his philosophy is influenced by ant-Semitism is a current controversy which we should report - one or maybe two paragraphs. From my reading the perspective in that work is not reflected in the Heidegger literature as a whole therefore that should be the limit. For that reason, VeryRarelyStable's suggestion should be rejected as it gives disproportionate weight to one perspective and the proposal illustrates the problem with the history here, namely the attempt to ensure that nothing is said about Heidegger which does not mention the Nazi issue. I am not necessarily anti-merge by the way, if the results of the merge are references to his Nazi past in the merged article are proportionate to that in the third party sources that look at him as a whole, not a partial selection of a particular perspective and if the merge is carried out by an independent editor.-----Snowded TALK 12:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Heidegger's philosophical works are not overtly fascist, Nazi or anti-semitic - if they were, he would not have gained the prominence as a philosopher that he did - Being & Time was published 6 years before he joined the Nazi party and he was lecturing on the question of Being and St Paul back in 1915, so the basis of his philosophy was forming before the Nazis came to power - because of his Christian background, his works could just as easily be seen to have a Christian foundation than a Nazi foundation (see "Heidegger and Theology" by Judith Wolfe, 2014) - as Heidegger is most notable as an existential philosopher, not as a Nazi philosopher, his Nazi affiliations should be presented with due weight - I believe the article as it stands gives due weight to his Nazism and oppose the merge with the "Martin Heidegger and Nazism" article - Epinoia (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yup, unlike Johannes Stark, Heidegger was not condemned to jail time. So the denazification authorities did not consider Heidegger as either dangerous or guilty of crimes. Believe me, I read lot of Heidegger's works when I was interested in his works, and none of them sound like Nazism, none of them advocate killing the Jews or push a racist POV. Heidegger's antisemitic prejudices are rather unremarkable, given his social environment (my teacher, Olga Amsterdamska, told that in the 19th century one was either a racist or a socialist—yup, the luminaries of statistics were mostly advocates of racism and devised statistical tests as a way of demonstrating racist claims). And Heidegger might have professed a "metaphysical antisemitism", which would be more properly called culture-ism per nl:Willem Schinkel. So, no, WP:GEVAL applies and the two sides of the debate should not be given equal weight. One of the sides is about hard facts, the other about mere opinions (guessiology). E.g. Heidegger did not write political philosophy; he could have pushed racism, the regime would have supported him in doing it, but he did not do it. As Friederich Nietzsche, he has been smeared of making Nazism possible. But if you look at who loved their writings, they were the darlings of the leftists. And the philosophers who have testified that his philosophy is poison, they would have regarded it as poison regardless of whether he supported or opposed Nazism. Their choice was made, they were not willing to be confused with the facts. Therefore: no to the merge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not an expert on Heidegger, but I will offer my comments, and will agree that Heidegger is remembered as a major twentieth-cetury existentialist philosopher who was also a Nazi. A question that some late-twentieth-century philosophers have addressed is how early-twentieth-century philosophy was compatible with Nazism, or whether there was a mistake in the development of German philosoophy so that it (or at least some strands of it) permitted Nazism. As a non-expert, my first thought is that the most important ethical principle that was originated by a German philosopher was the categorical imperative of Kant. The categorical imperative forbids insincere actions, but it does not forbid fanatical actions. My second thought is that existentialism does not provide an ethical framework, because existence precedes essence. (Sartre's existentialism led him to oppose the Nazi occupation.) The fact that Heidegger's philosophy was consistent with Nazism may be a limitation or critique of existentialism or of German non-rationalistic philosophy. The point is that Heidegger's Nazism sheds light (or darkness) on his philosophy. I disagree with a merge, but will not offer any citations, and I probably won't take any further part in this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) Fourth statement by moderator

I think that we've reached an impasse here, as editors have declined to provide additional examples of encyclopedic coverage other than Britannica and editors not in favor of a merge have rejected VeryRarelyStable's compromise proposal. While Britannica was cited by Sbelknap as an example of an encyclopedia giving more weight to Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, Snowded's assertion that Britannica spends 20% of its Heidegger article on his Nazi affiliations puts it rather close to our current coverage of the subject, which is about 18% Nazi-related (17% in the actual Heidegger and the Nazi Party section, and a few scattered paragraphs and sentences in the lead and biography sections. I'm going to open up space for editors to make further comments or arguments below, but my impression at this time is that we are unlikely to make further headway in this venue. Should the discussion conclude here, the minority position editors have the choice of either conceding the point or moving to an RfC. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding another note here since Sbelknap provided another tertiary source: this source appears to be 25-30% focused on Heidegger's Nazi affiliations. I'll leave it to participants to still weigh in on whether there is more to discuss here. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear I went though two online and one offline source and spent a lot of time counting lines and pages - I didn't just look at Britannica. I also pointed out they don't have an article on Heidegger and Nazi affiliations so if you take that into account it is a lot less than Wikipedia - Standford and Oxford were less than 5%. But other than that I agree with you and you have now reached the position we keep reaching on this article -----Snowded TALK 08:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(Heidegger) Fourth statements by editors

I feel I need to clarify that the split is not five editors against two. Several other editors have come along with edits supporting our side, had them reverted, and stopped trying, or (in the case of one or two IPs) been blocked. The most recent to try this on the page itself was Azerty82, and before them 88.217.152.166, and a while earlier there was Wolfdog. On the Talk page we had Chumchum7 and TonyClarke come in and try to make some sense of things, shortly before I applied for a DRN; they found they got nowhere and didn't come back. Sampling the page history, I find that these issues go at least as far back as 2015, with an editor called Philippe BINANT. Sbelknap and I are just the two who haven't given up and left.

I'd like to return to the comprehensibility issue, because I don't want to leave the impression that it's an afterthought. Back in September 2018, I tagged some parts of the Philosophy section as incomprehensible. Months later, in July 2019, an editor reworded a sentence and removed the "incomprehensible" tag. Finding the passage no easier to follow than before, I put the "incomprehensible" tag back. There followed some back-and-forth both in edits and on the Talk page, and soon I was told – by two opposing editors, both of them parties to this discussion – that the "incomprehensible" tags had only been put up recently, not months before as I was claiming. Which, having myself put them up months before, I knew was incorrect. But my restoring them was edit warring and "breaching consensus".

Edit summaries and the Talk discussion on the issue state both that Heidegger is inherently incomprehensible and cannot be clarified to Wikipedia standards and that the passages are already perfectly comprehensible and need no further clarification.

I'd like some outside perspective on whether or not these passages do meet Wikipedia standards. More than that, however, I'd like some assurances that future attempts to clarify the Philosophy section will be met with constructive criticism rather than stonewalling.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My take is that their edits do not belong in the main article, but in Martin Heidegger and Nazism. They are welcome to edit there. Nobody denied that Heidegger was a card-carrying member of the NSDAP. What we pointed to is that for the claim Heideggerianism is Nazism hard evidence is severely wanting, so yeah, per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE the two sides of the debate are not equal. I don't deny that there are notable opinions thereupon, but these have to be stated with attribution. Basically, if we rely upon historical empiric-analytic analysis of Heidegger's philosophical works, instead of philosophical speculations about what he might have meant, one side wins by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Reflist

  1. ^ Wolin, Richard. "The French Heidegger Debate." New German Critique, no. 45 (1988): 135-61. doi:10.2307/488100.
  2. ^ Matthew Sharpe (2018) Heidegger in 2018: Editor-translator’s Introduction, Critical Horizons, 19:4, 271-273, DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2018.1520503
  3. ^ Matthew Sharpe (2018) Heidegger in 2018: Editor-translator’s Introduction, Critical Horizons, 19:4, 271-273, DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2018.1520503
  4. ^ https://thegreatthinkers.org/heidegger/biography/
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.

Montenegro

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.


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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I do not wish to edit war over this, and therefore I went per Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot.

We have a dispute: should the ongoing protests in Montenegro be called /massive/. We also have a dispute over the information which clearly states that church officials were attacked while protesting and afterwards, including a vladika (bishop). I for one think that the information is notable enough and that it should be included and placed per NPOV. References such as Russia Today and Serbian medias have been removed, on the notion that they are "fake news" and no proof or reference for this claim was provided.

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

[32]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like you to help to calm things down, to discuss per Wikipedia:Civility and to see what makes sense here.

Summary of dispute by Sideshow Bob

There is no dispute here to speak of, if we disregard the ongoing obsession of this particular user with my Wikipedia activity, which borders on stalking. I merely stated that a section regarding the ongoing current event should be kept to a minimum in a country article, and note the most important points, rather than cherry pick individual events. Sources I removed were heavily biased articles which could be produced for both sides of the dispute and add nothing of encyclopedic value, since Montenegrin and Serbian media are being used as propaganda outlets on both sides of the dispute. If you feel that anything important has been omitted, feel free to be bold and continue editing, rather than waste everyone's time here. Also, for more detailed account of the ongoing events, there is the 2019–20 Montenegrin crisis article, and constructive input is always welcome. Sideshow Bob 08:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Montenegro discussion

Good day, I'm Nightenbelle, and I am volunteering to mediate this issue. However, Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs), are you choosing not to participate? Both parties have the right to choose wether or not they will participate in dispute resolution. Before we go farther, I want to make sure both Sadko (talk · contribs) and Sideshow Bob are willing to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Nightenbelle. Yes, I am. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I think Sideshow Bob is the one who is choosing not to participate. He has been active on WP over the past couple of days, but he is not participating in this discussion. My recommendation Sadko is to do a WP:RFC on the talk page and come to a concensus that way. If Sideshow Bob doesn't comment in the next 24 hours or so, I'm going to have to close this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 15:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_184&oldid=1146239672"