Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 233
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hybe Corporation
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Not a dispute needing resolution. Filing editor is encouraged to read the guidance at WP:EDITREQUEST and WP:UAL. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
İsmet İnönü
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as apparently declined. Participation in DRN is voluntary, and the other editor has not responded. Other editors have also been participating in the discussion at the article talk page. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If there is a specific change that the filing editor wants to make and discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be a good idea. If assistance in preparing an RFC is wanted, a request may be made on my user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Perpetual Stew
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. There are two problems. First, there were two other editors in the preliminary talk page discussion who have not been listed or notified. Second, the other listed editor has not been notified. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is again lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Lulea
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | User:ScooterMcGruff blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Johnbannan |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Exmor
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature and disruptive, and the wrong forum. The parties in the previous DRN were asked whether they wanted another RFC, and they sort of said that they did not. They were told that the previous RFC had established a rough consensus for removal of the table, and to resume discussion at the article talk page. There has been no recent discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor says that the previous RFC was hijacked, and so did not establish consensus. The proper forum for overturning the close of an RFC would be WP:AN, but after six months, a better way to overturn an RFC would be a new RFC. The place to discuss a new RFC would be the article talk page, and there hasn't been discussion there. This filing is disruptive, and appears to be an attempt to overturn the RFC by filibuster. Discuss at the article talk page. That's what it's for. After discussion at the article talk page, either submit a new RFC, or don't submit a new RFC. Any future filings here without adequate discussion and without an RFC will closed as dilatory. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Kent Desormeaux
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| | Closed as premature and disruptive. Content disputes should only be brought to DRN after lengthy inconclusive discussion on the article talk page. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in several months. Also, the other editor has not been notified. Either discuss the issue at the article talk page, so that a third party can understand what you want to change in the article, or don't discuss the issue, and leave it alone. And don't post an untrue statement that you have discussed at the article talk page when you haven't discussed at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Draft:NeuralSeek
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as incomprehensible, wrong forum, or both. It is very difficult to determine what the dispute is, or whether it is appropriate for this noticeboard. The article in question is a draft that has been deleted as spam. This noticeboard does not discuss drafts, only articles, and does not discuss deletion controversies. Since the draft has already been deleted, the author can appeal the deletion at Deletion Review, but I don't recommend that. If the objective is to develop a new draft, it is not necessary or useful to request to have the deleted draft refunded. Just start over. Obviously the previous effort was not successful. If the author, who appears to be employed by the subject company, wants to submit a new draft, they may submit a new draft via AFC. Do not create an article in article space if you have a conflict of interest. If you want to discuss first, you may discuss on a user talk page or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as not discussed. There has not been any recent discussion on the article talk page. Requesting assistance at DRN is a better idea than continuing to edit-war, but discussing on the article talk page is a required step before requesting assistance here. Sometimes regular discussion resolves the dispute. Discuss at the article talk page. Discussion elsewhere may also be useful, but it is required that there be discussion on the article talk page. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Avicii
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. A non-participant has changed the wording to "died by suicide", which had a rough consensus. This has probably been resolved, but I am not closing it as resolved, because it was done by asking a non-participating editor for assistance. That isn't explicitly against the rules, but it should have been clear that it wasn't proper. The current wording, with "died by suicide", is consistent both with the manual of style and a rough consensus. If the wording is changed back to the disputed wording without discussion, it may be reverted. If any editor wants to change it back to the previous wording, they should post an RFC for the purpose. This mediation is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
German battleship_Bismarck
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. It isn't clear whether the filing party wants to discuss article content, or the conduct of another editor. This is not the forum to discuss the conduct of an editor. If the issue is about article content, the filing editor should list all of the editors who took part in the talk page discussion, and notify all of them. In the meantime, resume discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Perpetual Stew
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as apparently declined by the other editors. None of the other editors have responded that they want to engage in moderated discussion. However, regular discussion is continuing at the article talk page. So continue discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Falkland Islands
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as declined by the other editors, and participation in DRN is voluntary. Two of the other editors have said that they are not interested in moderated discussion, and two of them have not replied. It appears that the filing editor has a one-against-many dispute. Either they can accept that they are in a minority, or they can make a specific proposal to change the article via a Request for Comments. (If they just edit the article boldly, they will probably be reverted.) Continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as badly filed, possibly due to some sort of glitch such as line noise. The filing editor has not listed the other editors. Two other editors have replied, but they do not appear to be requesting moderated discussion. The filing editor may refile this request, listing and notifying the other editors. In the meantime, resume discussion, including of article scope, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
– Discussion in progress.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
Two intertwined issues: PLOTCLOP and CITEKILL. The plot section is a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text and there are multiple cites in every sentence, all pointing to the same source. In addition, there are quotes within each cite, which means that you can pretty much read the original text verbatim by looking through the footnotes. A single cite at the end of the plot section w/ no reproduction of original text would be far more encyclopedic and would be supported under WP:REPCITE.
I suggested this on the talk page, citing appropriate policy, whereupon the other editor insisted that this level of citation is necessary to avoid OR from getting into the article and accused me of vandalism before I made a single edit. Their comments suggest WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and I believe DRN is necessary at this point.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acts_of_Peter_and_the_Twelve#Plot_CLOP
Discussion meets the required two posts by two editors.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please advise whether this level and style of citation, with multiple duplicative cites and extensive quotes from a single source, is correct or whether it violates WP:CITEKILL and should be replaced w/ a single cite at the end. Also, please advise whether plot summary as written constitutes WP:PARAPHRASE and should be shortened/simplified.
Summary of dispute by TriplePowered
Yesterday, self-proclaimed Wikipedia Deletionist 'Just Another Cringy Username' discovered Acts of Peter after the article was featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The article has passed the good article nomination process (meaning both copyright violation and the references section were graded by the GA reviewer as Pass). Instead of making an actual contribution to the article's content, the user's only interest is mass deleting the inline citations, which would indeed be vandalism. He insists other good and featured articles using the same inline citation style are also wrong. The user seems exceptionally eager to delete this content, which is quite odd, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a reliable source of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriplePowered (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Acts of Peter and the Twelve discussion
- Volunteer note - Please note, Just Another Cringy Username, that WP:CITEKILL is an essay and not a guideline so being "in violation" is not something that can be determined objectively. Two reasonable editors can disagree as to the level of "overkill". TriplePowered, I'm finding it hard to find evidence to support JACU wishes to delete the content. Deleting or combining references is a different thing to deleting the text they support.I'm sure a solution can be found to reduce the number of citations to the same source (for example when verses 10:7-8 and 10:8-11 are cited separately in the same sentence) such that the visual weight of citations is reduced but the current information is preserved. If both parties are willing to go through the process here of determining which such citations would benefit from combining them I'd be glad to moderate such a process. If so, I'll make a moderator statement outlining the format we'll take. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, citations 51 and 52 could be combined. But how many others are there? Usually there is a gap of at least a few lines in the source text between each citation. Usually it's one citation per sentence. When there are two citations for a compound sentence, it's because there's a significant gap between the relevant lines in the source text. TriplePowered (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- I would call your attention to WP:CITEDENSE, which states, "Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles." WP:CITEDENSE goes on to recommend that extended material cited from a single source should have one combined citation at the end of the paragraph. Since the entire plot summary comes from the same book, I would think at most one cite at the end of each paragraph should be sufficient. One at the end of the whole section would be best.
- @Ixtal, yes, I agree to go through the process. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - This is User:Ixtal's case to mediate, but I will restate one rule that always applies at DRN, which is: "Comment on content, not contributors." If I were mediating this dispute, I would have collapsed some of the introductory statements as out of scope. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to improve the editors or complain about the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I, too, talked with TriplePowered on a different talk page (Talk:Testimony of Truth), and despite phrasing my suggestion fairly humbly, got a fairly aggressive response back. So I don't really agree with Robert McClenon here - user conduct is an issue here, too, and talking about expectations for talk page communication is absolutely reasonable. TriplePowered could have politely said "no thanks" to my suggestion. He also seems to have interpreted Jenhawk passing one article for GA as a license that this style is the normal and accepted one. That said, despite this, I sincerely hope TriplePowered continues contributing - he's definitely improved these articles overall, and I absolutely am not trying to "scare him off." You're doing good work, please continue! This overall improvement doesn't mean that said changes are perfect, though, and it shouldn't be a problem to politely suggest this heavily WP:PRIMARY style of doing a summary of contents isn't the standard and expected reference style, though.
- Anyway, going back to content, my suggestion is neither the current "exclusively sourced to the primary source" (as TriplePowered has it) nor "a single reference at the end" (as JACU suggests). The generally accepted style with old religious texts is to use WP:SECONDARY sources from scholars, even for a plot summary. There's a reason for this: interpreting these old documents is not trivial, and it's very easy to accidentally stray into WP:OR when using direct citations of the text. This is doubly true if a work has any "coded" elements where XYZ really stands for ABC and so on, which is not uncommon in Gnostic literature. And it's also possible that scholars consider certain lines unimportant filler, while a primary-source quoting analysis can unduly raise their prominence. To be clear, let me stress again that having some primary source quotations is fine, but ideally everything should also be sourced to a scholarly analysis, not just the primary source. Even in the plot section, not just a scholarly analysis section. SnowFire (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello SnowFire I was referenced above, so I am offering some explanation and defense of TriplePowered 's method of citation. I probably did encourage him to cite everything. I do it too. When I first arrived here 6 years ago, I had a very unpleasant experience of receiving harassment and personal attacks from someone now banned from WP. I had to defend every sentence, every source and every author, on everything I wrote as he followed me from article to article. Eventually, I got in the habit of never writing a sentence without being able to prove it came from a quality source. So, I no doubt made sure every sentence in 'Peter and the Twelve' that I passed for GA was likewise cited.
- I also like quotes and use them a lot for clarity. There's no arguing over if what was said means what you think if you just quote it. Writing in a highly controversial area seems to require that on occasion. As long as there is no WP prohibition against it, I don't think he's in the wrong. He did what I asked, and what I myself do, to ensure the accuracy and dependable scholarship of WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Sorry, wasn't trying to subtweet you here or anything, but also wasn't sure how DRN felt about explicitly pinging / inviting other users in. To be clear, a style that heavily cites every sentence with multiple references is fine. (And I had a negative experience with some questionable editors early in my WP career too, amusingly enough.) My stance is that for old religious texts, said references should ideally be to scholarly summaries of the work, not quotes of a translation of the work, per WP:PRIMARY and to avoid WP:OR. The translation itself ideally only needs to be referenced for direct quotes. It's not a big problem for B-level article, but I'm skeptical at the GA/A/FA level unless there was truly no other option. (And TriplePowered's confidence that primary cites avoid interpretation is quite misplaced - there are a lot of ways to translate Coptic to Greek to English, especially in manuscripts that are damaged.) SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- SnowFire I agree with all of this, but now I am no longer sure I understand what this disagreement is actually about - too many citations or not enough? It would help me if you could clarify exactly what it is you think is wrong with this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- As the one whose proposed edit started the whole thing, let me clarify. It's two intertwined issues: PLOTCLOP and CITEKILL. Presently, the plot section contains multiple cites in every sentence, all pointing to the same primary source and all containing direct quotes from said source. In addition, the plot as written is such a close paraphrase that, given the quotes within each cite, you can pretty much read the original text verbatim by looking through the footnotes.
- SnowFire I agree with all of this, but now I am no longer sure I understand what this disagreement is actually about - too many citations or not enough? It would help me if you could clarify exactly what it is you think is wrong with this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Sorry, wasn't trying to subtweet you here or anything, but also wasn't sure how DRN felt about explicitly pinging / inviting other users in. To be clear, a style that heavily cites every sentence with multiple references is fine. (And I had a negative experience with some questionable editors early in my WP career too, amusingly enough.) My stance is that for old religious texts, said references should ideally be to scholarly summaries of the work, not quotes of a translation of the work, per WP:PRIMARY and to avoid WP:OR. The translation itself ideally only needs to be referenced for direct quotes. It's not a big problem for B-level article, but I'm skeptical at the GA/A/FA level unless there was truly no other option. (And TriplePowered's confidence that primary cites avoid interpretation is quite misplaced - there are a lot of ways to translate Coptic to Greek to English, especially in manuscripts that are damaged.) SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- To sum it up, the original text which is the subject of the article is reproduced in nearly its entirety in the footnotes and also retold as a close paraphrase in the Plot section. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: My concern is that all of these citations are to excerpts of the translation of the text itself rather than a scholarly summary. See my remarks at Talk:Testimony of Truth. It's maybe easier to imagine the issue on better covered topics - imagine if Epistle_of_Barnabas#Contents was just cited to a translation of Barnabas itself rather than what scholars take from it. For works that have any sort of allegorical content or rely on references to events of the era that might not be obvious to a modern reader, it's potentially problematic. I could be convinced otherwise on a case-by-case basis, but TriplePowered didn't really seem to agree with the principle that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary ones. SnowFire (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RSPSCRIPTURE should probably be taken into account here. It says
Content that interprets or summarizes scriptural passages or narratives should generally be cited to appropriate scholarly sources
. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) - SnowFire Thank you so much for taking the time to explain. I went back to check the article, and I see what you are saying. I think your criticism is fair and accurate. Fixing the excessive citing is not even a big ask. I don't know why they don't just cooperate. In the GA review, I told them Just for future reference, unless something is controversial, which imo this article is not, each sentence only needs one citation. I should have persisted but instead let it go.
- The other problem is also my bad. I should have caught that the references in the Summary section are to a primary source, which is not wrong in itself but absolutely needs secondary source support. I did say "I am just wondering if there might be any significant differences in any other translations", but I didn't follow up on that either, and that's on me.
- So, it's looking like my willingness to overlook imperfections means I did a crap job of reviewing. Even so, this really is a good article and if the things that should have been fixed during the review get fixed now it should retain its GA tag.
- Thank you SnowFire, for catching these problems, and for persevering through to get these changes made. You have made the encyclopedia better - and this will help me be a better reviewer - maybe not a nicer one but a better one at any rate.
- I support the changes asked for as necessary and valid. If anyone cares. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RSPSCRIPTURE should probably be taken into account here. It says
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I don't know whether User:Ixtal will be acting as the moderator, but there are a few preliminary matters that I can clear up. First, please read the usual rules, and state that you agree to follow them. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.
Second, in response to User:SnowFire, who says that user conduct is an issue also, and that talking about expectations for talk page communication should be in order, I will explain why and how DRN is a forum for discussing article content only. The purpose of editing Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia. DRN is a noticeboard for article content disputes, in which the objective of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So we don't talk about user conduct, not because it isn't a problem, but because the reason for a neutral moderator is to avoid any conduct issues and improve the article anyway. Conduct issues are a problem when they interfere with collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia and its articles, so focusing on the articles is the way of mitigating the effect of conduct issues. The moderator will say to be civil and concise, and only the moderator will mention conduct, and only so that the focus is on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia, there are content forums and conduct forums, and they are separate noticeboards. If you want to discuss user conduct, you may go to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but the objective of editing is to improve the encyclopedia.
Third, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article (or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed)? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I do not want to change the article. I want to prevent the other user from
|
vandalizing this article and likely others in the future by |
mass deleting citations. The only relevant questions are: (1) Are the inline citations violating Wikipedia policy? (No) and (2) Would deleting the inline citations make Wikipedia better? (No). I want the moderator to make it clear to the other user that these (and similar) citations should not be deleted. TriplePowered (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I want to streamline and simplify the citations in this article. The present summary section has a cite every three to five words, all pointing to the same source. This is unnecessarily duplicative.
I'm also worried that the plot summary is more of a straight retelling or close paraphrase than a summary. This problem intertwines with the cite issue as each cite contains a corresponding direct quote from the original text, which means that you can pretty much read the original story verbatim by looking through the footnotes. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I will act as the moderator. User:SnowFire. User:Jenhawk777 – Do you want to be added to the list of participants in this discussion? Will all participants please read the rules again? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion. That is the only place for back-and-forth discussion. Do not reply to each other's statement in the space for statements. Make your statements to the community and the moderator, who represents the community. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not discuss this article at any other noticeboards. (You have the right to discuss this article at other noticeboards, but if so, you will be discussing the article there, and not here.)
It is clear that there are content issues and conduct issues. We will only discuss content issues, because the objective of this discussion is to improve the article.
I don't usually tell the participants to assume good faith, because it usually isn't necessary. It is necessary here. Do not make statements that imply bad faith. Do not insult other editors. Vandalism has a well-defined and limited meaning in Wikipedia. It is editing that is intended to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. It does not merely mean editing that you dislike. Do not refer to edits as vandalism unless you are prepared to report them to the vandalism noticeboard. Remember that the allegation of vandalism is a personal attack.
It is clear that one of the issues is that the article currently has 81 citations, many of which are duplicative references to a translation of the original, and that one editor wishes to reduce the number of citations by consolidating them. Are there any other issues also? If so, please state concisely what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon Is it okay to respond here? I think things are getting lost by being spread around. Sorry if this is the wrong place. There are two problems if I understand correctly: 1) too many citations, breaking up sentences, and repeating themselves; and 2) the Summary section, no secondary source, too close a paraphrase.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
The other user's claim of a citation "every three to five words" is obviously false. But the only concern is whether the citations are helpful. These citations have demonstrably improved the quality of the encyclopedia, because they helped correct minor errors in the summary. For example, the summary originally incorrectly said Lithargoel held a book rather than a book cover. It also incorrectly stated that Lithargoel believes in Jesus instead of the Father who sent Jesus. Citing each sentence in those cases drew attention to the mismatch between the summary and the actual text, allowing the mistakes to be fixed. 500 words is a perfectly reasonable summary length, and the encyclopedia does not benefit from making it any shorter. Scholars' theories about the text belong in the separate Analysis section. So again, I do not want to change the article.
Statement by JACU: I assume the above unsigned statement comes from TriplePowered. I don't have much to add at this point, other than to make it clear that my objections pertain to only the Summary section. Most of my work on WP is taken up w/ editing Plot sections, particularly cutting down overlong summaries. I have no opinions re the remainder of the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
User:SnowFire – You wrote:
Sorry if the above doesn't meet DRN standards, but per WP:NOTBURO, it's really not a big deal. … I think discussing the matter normally first is helpful before resorting to formal statements.
Either I don't understand, or you have missed the point. DRN follows a formal process because editors come to DRN after regular discussion has already been lengthy and inconclusive. You may choose to participate, or not to participate. Do you want to participate?
Will each editor please state concisely whether there are any changes to the article that they want to make, other than the number of footnotes? Will each editor also please state concisely whether they have an issue with the footnotes, and what it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I want to streamline and simplify the plot summary section of this article and its corresponding citations. The present summary has a cite every three to five words, all pointing to the same primary source. This is unnecessarily duplicative.
I'm also worried that the plot summary is more of a straight retelling or close paraphrase than a summary. This problem intertwines with the cite issue as each cite contains a corresponding direct quote from the original text, which means that you can pretty much read the original story verbatim by looking through the footnotes.
I have no opinions re the remainder of the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote the summary. It is appropriate length, accurate, and coherent. It should not be changed. I wrote the citations. There is nothing wrong with them. They should not be changed. None of the proposed deletions make Wikipedia better, they simply delete useful information. TriplePowered (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
It appears that there are two content issues. The first seems to be that there are too many duplicative footnotes. The second is that there have been complaints about the Summary section. On the first issue, each editor is asked to make a concise statement saying what they think should be done about the footnotes, and why. On the second issue, each editor who wants anything changed in the Summary section is asked to make a concise statement saying what they want changed in the Summary.
If there are any other issues, please identify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I would like to streamline and simplify the footnotes and cites in the summary section. Since the whole section is sourced from the same work, a single cite at the end of the summary will be sufficient.
I would also like to trim the plot summary as it is presently a close paraphrase of the original and too detailed for a summary. The a plot summary for a novel is 400-700 words. This text being shorter than a novel, I believe 100-200 words would suffice. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Nothing needs to be deleted, no matter how many times I have to say it. TriplePowered (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I see that there was a Good Article Review only two months ago, and that something very close to the current version of the article was approved, and that User:Jenhawk777 was the reviewer. That would appear to establish a rough consensus that the article doesn't need improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Jenhawk777 – Does your statement below mean that you are reversing your opinion that you stated in the Good Article review? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon I don't have a simple answer to this. First, I don't agree that a GA means an article doesn't need improvement. A GA article can still be improved, or there would be no such thing as FA.
- Second, as I stated above,
In the GA review, I told them, "Just for future reference, unless something is controversial, which imo this article is not, each sentence only needs one citation". I should have persisted but instead let it go.
Me letting it go merely indicates that, at that time, I did not think excessive citation qualified as an egregious enough offense on any of the five criteria to prevent the article from getting its GA status. There is no limitation on number of citations in the GA requirements as long as the refs are quality and accurate. However, I think now that I did fail to see the things the other editors here saw and persisted in pursuing. I think they are right for doing so, now, at this time. Compliance would improve an already good article. - I also wrote above that
The other problem is also my bad. I should have caught that the references in the Summary section are to a primary source, which is not wrong in itself but absolutely needs secondary source support. I did say to them, "I am just wondering if there might be any significant differences in any other translations", but I didn't follow up on that either, and that's on me.
Again, there is not a policy against using a primary source in any of the GA requirements, so it's not "wrong" as it stands, but a secondary source - and some editing down of the section - would improve the article. No doubt. - Even with its flaws, this really is a good article and, yes, I still think it deserves its rating based on my understanding of the 5 criteria - which may be inadequate! That doesn't mean it's perfect in every way. It would not pass FA for example. The changes discussed here might fix that. I don't know what that means to you in this context, but that's the best response I can give. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
Fifth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
It now appears that there are two editors who want to change the article, and one editor who wants to leave the article as it is. In particular, it appears that two editors think that the number of footnotes should be decreased because they are duplicative, and that the summary should be revised. The next step is for the editors who think that the summary should be revised to develop a draft revised summary. I have created a draft of the summary section, which is a copy of the existing summary section. It is Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Summary. Work on it, and then we can compare the existing summary section with the revised summary section. (This does not mean that the revised draft will replace the current summary. It means that it will be compared against the current summary.) Are there any other issues about the article? Are my instructions about the revised draft clear? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Instructions are clear! No other issues on my end. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I have edited the draft page with my proposed changes and I invite other editors to discuss.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I really like your draft version, and it is an improvement imo. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Awful and incoherent. The Pearl allegory is essential. The journey to Nine Gates, also essential, is stripped out and confuses the reader into thinking Nine Gates is Habitation. This is just removing information for no good reason and making the text harder to understand. The Analysis is also harder to understand without understanding the original text.
| Comment on content, not contributors. No one owns a Wikipedia article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why would someone like me continue creating Wikipedia content when a random person can come along and delete it despite being essential to knowledge of the topic and well-cited, just because the person likes deleting parts of Wikipedia? |
TriplePowered (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Let the moderator do the warnings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Sixth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
At this point I would normally fail this moderation, but I will continue it so that I can ask the community to choose between the two versions of the Summary section with a Request for Comments. I will restate that no editor, even one who has brought an article to Good Article status, has ownership. I will repeat from the rules: When I said: "Comment on content, not contributors", I meant "Comment on content, not contributors," If the two editors who wanted to shorten the Summary are finished with their work, I will prepare the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The moderator will issue the warnings. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I'm done, though willing to make further changes depending on the result of the RfC. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am also done. Thank you everyone for all your efforts to make this article better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
| No content has been removed. The community is deciding whether to remove content in accordance with due weight, which is not malicious, and is intended to decide which of two versions improves the quality of the encyclopedia. If you want to object to the RFC, you may do that at WP:ANI, but would be well advised to read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." This is simply a direct quote of the policy outlined on WP:VANDAL. TriplePowered (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
Seventh statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
The RFC has been started. It will run for 30 days. If there are any other issues that the editors want to address while waiting for the RFC, please identify them. Otherwise I will close the DRN to leave the content issue (which version of the Summary) to be resolved by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
At this point the RfC community seems to be advocating for something "in between" versions A and B. If it goes that way, who will be responsible for creating the new summary? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
User:Just Another Cringy Username asks who will be responsible for creating the "in between" version. The answer would be "anyone". They had also asked whether they could edit the revised summary to address user comments, and I said not to do that, because it would cause confusion. But now I have created another draft page for further work on the summary, which is called Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Third Summary. (The first one is in the article. The second one is being reviewed in the RFC.) So you edit it. It is a copy of the original version, so that you don't have to restore anything, but can trim it somewhat less. If it becomes ready for review within a few days or so, we can mention it also in the existing RFC, but we need to keep the two versions as is in the RFC to avoid confusion. I hope that this is clear. If not, I will try to answer questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
"In between" version is done. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if the above doesn't meet DRN standards, but per WP:NOTBURO, it's really not a big deal. Unfortunately it seemed that this was the place the discussion started hence continuing the discussion here, so you can presume that the above was really more of a WikiProject discussion at WT:RELIGION or the like. I think discussing the matter normally first is helpful before resorting to formal statements. SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- I apologize to Robert McClenon for being inactive the past few days such that he's had to step in to moderate it while I was away. SnowFire, a section shouldn't be used for a purpose it is not meant to be used for (e.g. addressing the dispute in a section meant to discuss the mediation process). The formal nature of DRN statements and sections is a useful and necessary part of the DRN procedure. It helps prevent the possibly contentious, nuanced discussions from becoming the same circlejerk that made editors feel DRN was needed. If editors do not want formal mediation, they should not seek a DRN process. On a second note, WikiProjects do not own pages under their purview. Treating the discussion above or any discussion at WT:RELIGION as binding on religion articles is against the wider community consensus on wikiproject discussions. Therefore, any discussion or consensus in WT:RELIGION or WT:CHRISTIANITY would hold less weight in a discussion compared to establish practice in the topic area (i.e. consensus through editing) or discussion in the article's talk page. Similarly, saying that the discussion above should be assumed to have happened at another noticeboard defeats the point of using this noticeboard in the first place and could be disruptive to the consensus-building exercise that is DRN (see WP:FORUMSHOP for explanation on why). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- I also apologize to Robert McClenonSnowFireIxtal and the rest of the community for jumping in like this, but I felt like I had contributed to the problems in this article and that needed acknowledging. So, yes, add me in here. There are two problems if I understand correctly: 1) too many citations, breaking up sentences, and repeating themselves; and 2) the Summary section, no secondary source, too close a paraphrase. I think both are valid criticisms that need fixing. Thank you and again, I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon @Ixtal Am I allowed to make changes to the proposed new summary based on input from the RfC or should I wait until it's finished? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Just Another Cringy Username - Do not edit the draft summary while the RFC is in progress. Editing it at this point would make the remarks inconsistent. You may if you wish create a second draft that is distinct from the current draft. Leave the current summary draft alone so as not to confuse people. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Battle of_Kosovo
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as fizzled out. There has been no response in four days to the moderator's question about what the editors want changed in the article. If there is any continuing disagreement about article content, resume discussion at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. A new request for moderated discussion may be filed here after new discussion has been lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
The Exodus
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as fizzled out. None of the editors have responded in a timely manner to requests to make summary statements. DRN tries to resolve disputes by moderated discussion, not by waiting several days for comments. Resume discussion on the article talk page if there still are issues. An RFC may be used if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Rape in Islamic law
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as moot. The filing editor has been indefinitely blocked. If there are any remaining article content issues among the remaining editors, they may discuss them at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Electronic hypersensitivity
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Discussion on whether a single source is reliable for use should happen at WP:RSN. Additionally, the proper place to ask for a third opinion is WP:3O. I recommend that filing editor Bokidam familiarizes themself with our guidelines on how consensus is interpreted and medical sources (which differ somewhat from our guidelines on non-medical sources). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 17:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
2023 Haryana riots
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed for two reasons. First, this appears to be a dispute over the reliability of sources, which should be resolved at the reliable source noticeboard. Second, the other two editors have not replied, and discussion here is voluntary. So the filing editor can post any questions about the reliability of sources at the reliability of sources, and all the editors can discuss article content at the article talk page. If discussion of article content is inconclusive, a new request can be opened here, but should state how the question is about article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
WikiTree
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as also pending in another forum. This article has been nominated for deletion. Also, although there has been discussion on the article talk page, it does not appear to be about article content. Concerns about gatekeeping by employees should be addressed at the conflict of interest noticeboard (but only if the article is kept). If the article is kept, resume discussion of article content at the article talk page, discussing content rather than contributors. In the meantime, discuss whether to keep or delete the article at the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed 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 article is the subject of a war, in which I have been involved but do not want to continue. WikiTree is a genealogy site, but their Wikipedia article is short of acceptable third-party assessments and is patrolled by employees or supporters of the site who remove text they consider to be criticism. In other words, it is self-referential and not encyclopedic. Critics of WikiTree base their contributions on personal experience and opinion, sometimes in intemperate language, which is equally self-referential and not encyclopedic. On the Sitejabber review site [3], three obvious puffs by employees or supporters of WikiTree are outnumbered by twelve disappointed reviewers.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiTree How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Where do we go from here? All I can suggest is that until employees or supporters of WikiTree can produce a balanced and referenced article, that cites reputable sources and notes criticisms, it should be cut down to a stub. Summary of dispute by DeathmolorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WikiTree discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:List of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| | Closed as not adequately discussed. There has not been an actual discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor is also reminded to reread the policy to assume good faith and the civility policy and refrain from allegations of lying. Resume discussion at the article talk page, or report conduct violations at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Roger Williams
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as not am article content dispute of the sort handled in DRN. That is, this is not primarily about Roger Williams; also, the discussion on the article talk page would not have been adequate if this were a content dispute. This is a question of naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ethnicities_and_tribes)#Naming_conventions:_Native,_Indigenous,_Indian,_etc. That guideline states that the indigenous people of the United States are normally referred to as Native American. Further discussion about naming can be taken to the Village Pump for possible clarification or expansion of the guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
- ^ Ali, Kecia (20 January 2017). "Concubinage and Consent". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 49 (1). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 148–152. doi:10.1017/s0020743816001203. ISSN 0020-7438. S2CID 159722666.
- ^ "Islam and Slavery". Brandeis University. Retrieved 27 July 2023.
- ^ https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/wikitree.com