Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

– This request has been placed on hold.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Toronto#Changes to the First Paragraph of the Lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JPark99 (talk · contribs)
• Saboteurest (talk · contribs)
• Alaney2k (talk · contribs)
• Johnny Au (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute over proposed changes to the lead section of the Toronto article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted a discussion on the talk page, also requested a third opinion and was directed here.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an outside, neutral opinion.

Summary of dispute by Saboteurest

Summary of dispute by Alaney2k

My concern is mostly that the quality of the text could be improved. I think that, mainly, having the most-populous text, etc., the positive text is normal for an article of this type. I think that it is important to be objective too and the text comes across as self-important. As someone who has visited most of Canada, lived elsewhere in Canada, I do agree that Toronto by itself is the most important city in Canada in many fields, and in some ways, (like English TV) dominates Canada, but it's not by a "country mile". Mostly, it is a fast-growing, prosperous city. It has problems - homelessness, poverty, income disparity, automobile traffic, public transit gap and I would like to see those reflected in the lead. There's a bit too much about ranking. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Johnny Au

Though I'm a major contributor to the article, I am seeking consensus. I am not asking much. That is all. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I have added an editor. The filing party should notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer note - I have added an editor and notified non-filing participants of discussion. Nihlus 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer note - Saboteurest has not edited in over a week. If they do not respond to messages soon, we will move on. @JPark99, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: Do you feel this DR is necessary in light of Saboteurest's inactivity? If so, we can continue it; otherwise, I will close it. Feel free to respond below this message. Nihlus 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like Saboteurest to have the chance to have their say. I agree fully with Alaney2k's comments in this discussion, and agree with the changes proposed. I'd like to add that the extremely high housing prices in Toronto could be reflected in the lead along with other problems the city faces, as it has created a major housing crisis. My disagreements with Saboteurest have been primarily about the removal of statistics and other data about the city, and language used to describe the city. I think it would be beneficial to keep this discussion open for one more week, to give everyone a chance to comment. JPark99 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with extending the discussion by a week to be fair. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Volunteer note: Although, not customary, I will keep this thread open for the next seven days to allow Saboteurest a chance to respond per the agreement of participants. The case will be on hold until then. Nihlus 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references to reddit and social networks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BrightR (talk · contribs)
• Farcaller (talk · contribs)
• CliffracerX (talk · contribs)
• Tulpabug (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The talk page links to the beginning of the dispute; in general, three editors keep using citations inappropriately and incorporate poor citations (reddit discussions, internet forums, predatory journals, original synthesis) and misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them, as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research). The dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When this dispute was between two editors (myself and Seteleechete) I solicited a third opinion. When the third opinion agreed that the article cannot put so much emphasis on personal opinions of tulpa practitioners, three other editors joined in and started adding dubious sources and using weasel words to misattribute personal feelings by tulpa practitioners as if they were scientific studies.

How do you think we can help?

Make it clear that these dubious sources do not meet Wikipedia reliable-source standards (predatory journals, internet forums, personal blogs), that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners), and that in order to properly discuss the differences, the editors cannot split the discussion among five or six sections, and should centralize discussion as it all pertains to the same issue.

Summary of dispute by Farcaller

To start of with the dispute points:

• "misrepresent existing sources through weasel words by making claims and not attributing them" — all the claims were backed by citations where applicable, based on works of Vessiere and, later, Isler. If the claims were made to look like they are not attributed to, the only reason to that was excessive cutting.
• "as if they are attributed to the source ("tulpas are understood..." (by who?) by the practitioners, not by scientific research" — tulpas are a cultural and mass media phenomenon. The source of truth on the current use of the word likes in the community resources to begin with (although recent scientific research is only welcome)
• "the dispute is made more and more difficult to manage because the editors keep splitting the discussion between more and more talk page sections." — I will take the blame on that one; I treated the reverted edits as dedicated issues and created a new section per each one to make sure the discussion is focused on the distinct edits.
• "that editors cannot use synthesis (taking a paper about the DSM and attributing its findings to the condition of tulpa practitioners)" — that wasn't the case. The original text before the edit references Isler's work.

Onto my point.

The article, historically, dealt with the Buddhist notion of the word tulpa, which is only of historical interest at the moment. The same word is used broadly in mass media to define many other things (e.g. the Spanish version of the article has a long list of "tulpa" used in media for a different context). Additionally, the word has a dedicated meaning for an internet subculture, which is broad enough to be of wikipedia interest and is being researched in a more formal way too.

It would be unreasonable to pretend that split doesn't exist. The article was plagued by some community members with e.g. links to tulpa.info, so I took extra care to find more reputable sources that don't include links to "an internet forum". While I did use WP:SOCIALMEDIA, I believe this is a fair use case of tulpa practitioners from mass media describing their personal experiences, which is accepted under self-published source criteria.

As of the current moment, there isn't solid scientific backing of the mechanisms of modern day tulpa concept, so the amount of the actual research to be referenced is limited. But as it is a growing social and media factor, I expect that adding the relevant material would be good for the overall article quality.

On a side note, I believe some references that are made in the Buddhist part of the article are controversial to themselves. E.g. the reference "The Dalai Lama mentioned in a public statement that his successor might appear via sprul-pa while the current Dalai Lama is still alive" isn't reflected in the original source, that instead talks about tulku (tulku has a dedicated article on wikipedia); while later in the tulpa article the quote says "The power of producing magic formations, tulkus or less lasting and materialized tulpas". It is clear that the primary source of the buddhist part, A. David-Néel saw tulpas and tulku as different concepts, thus some of the references made in the previous parts are incorrect and cannot relate to tulpa (or sprul-pa).

Summary of dispute by CliffracerX

The things I have problems with are as follows.

First, BrightR's treatment of fellow editors edges into the realm of violating the 4th pillar. Community guideline violations don't speak good things about an editor, especially when they're working hard to prove themselves "in the right" - it reeks of trying to discredit PoVs that you don't like.

Secondly, "POV-pushing" - the NPoV may be impossible, but BrightR has engaged in just as much POV-pushing against the Tulpas community as Farcaller and Seteleechete have pushed for it. BrightR's edits that trample the Tulpa community don't get reverted, but our edits that try to provide open-minded representation of a widely-misunderstood topic will get reverted and BrightR will call us POVpushers on the talk page. Again, the fourth pillar is violated.

Thirdly, the idea that there can't be more representation of the community's ideals. This is maybe not appropriate for an edit dispute, but the fact that so many people say "no, we can't share more of their PoV!" strikes an uncomfortable note. Wikipedia is the first line of information for plenty of people, and it discredits Wikipedia itself, the modern Tulpas community, and even the occult community, to cram all these separate ideas into one page, with so little info on what the practical end-result of any idea might be.

People don't have a frame of reference for Tulpas in any of the senses described in the article, so dedicating so much space to the history and so little to the practical end-results (e.g, the appearance of 2 people, 1 brain) means that people will come in looking for info because they found out a friend has Tulpas, and leave none the wiser for it - a critical failure of what makes Wikipedia great.

Basically; I think BrightR is engaging in just as much POVpushing as he accuses others of, and that until more "Wikipedia acceptable" information is available (e.g, more papers in the vein of Isler's that actually study the topic, that aren't put up on bad journals, get external reviews, etc), and while the team continues to side with people like BrightR, then the modern definition section will remain of questionable neutrality, and provide very little information that's practical to a curious reader - it may be for the best that it just be removed outright.

Summary of dispute by 96.63.57.115/Tulpabug

I should probably register an actual account if I am going to be involved in an actual dispute discussion. Anyhow, The article in question has always been plagued by inaccuracies and such. As a notable phenomenon a lot of people are interested in, it would be nice if Wikipedia's coverage of the phenomenon were accurate. I recently created a discussion thread on the topic on the talk page, talking about what I believe is the single biggest inaccuracy in the article, a very incorrect portrayal of the link between tulpas and Buddhism.

I feel sorry for probably antagonising some people in the process of airing my frustrations. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: After some reflection, I feel the reason I came here is not the issue at stake in this debate. So I will try to comment on that as a third party briefly.

Two main editors, BrightR, and Farcaller. BrightR is overstepping their authority by making arbitrary reversions of Farcaller's work without sufficient justification. Farcaller is terrible at arguing. I wouldn't be surprised if he just gave up at this point.

One core issue is the reliability of Ister's paper which has been incorrectly measured by both parties in different directions. (1) Reliability by publishing. It is officially published. However, the journal is alleged to have an improper review process. The evidence put forward for this is low to moderate in strength. (2) Reliability by reputation. The idea that Ister's reputation must be based on academic achievement is obviously false. However, it is also the most objective measure possible, so it is a shame he wrote the paper while in high school. Nonetheless, amongst the core expert group of tulpas, tulpas and tulpamancers, Ister is considered a leading authority. (3) Reliability by integrity of the content. Ister's paper is new, so it lacks independent confirmation of the reliability of the content in terms of being cited or being reviewed in other articles. However, this evidence will be created over time. 96.63.57.115 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name change to tulpabug Tulpabug (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been extensive discussion on the talk page and all the parties have been notified. The discussion however has been broken up into several sections. A volunteer may go through the discussion and open this dispute. The parties are requested to refrain from editing the page concerned in the meanwhile. Other participants who have been notified but are yet to file their summary statements are requested to do so within 48 hours. Those not willing to participate can simply state so in their summary sections above. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 48 hours and everybody presented their side of the dispute (except Seteleechete who wasn't a part of the continuing dispute, only the initial dispute). If anyone wants to step in, now's the time. Bright☀ 12:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Volunteer note: I've removed Seteleechete as they are not part of the ongoing dispute; I've also updated the IP to Tulpabug. Additionally, as the person who provided the third opinion prior to this DRN post, I will not be moderating this discussion. Nihlus 15:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. Are the participants interested in and agreeable to moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I voiced my concerns on the content in my statement above. Farcaller (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for commenting on editors in my dispute summary. I can restrict my contributions to objective analysis of reference material and article format going forward. Tulpabug (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of Turkish football champions (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 1886kusagi (talk · contribs)
• Akocsg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

According to the turkish football federation the former tournaments are not recognized as off. championships and therefore should not listed at the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Showed off. sources and examples of the other countries lists.

How do you think we can help?

Find the true and correct form for the list

Summary of dispute by 1886kusagi

As i mentioned above, IMO only the official recognized (by the Turkish football federation) championships shouöd be listed. As it is the way at the other countries list of football champions.

The list of champions according to the Turkish Football Federation: http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=379

Summary of dispute by Akocsg

Talk:List of Turkish football champions discussion

Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion on talk page. The request was malformed so I fixed it. The filling party did not notify the other editor, so I posted a notification on their talk page.--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - Are the editors interested in moderated discussion? (One editor has not commented at all. Since participation here is voluntary, this thread will be closed if they do not respond within 48 hours.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– 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

• Celebrity Mastermind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BangJan1999 (talk · contribs)
• Edwardx (talk · contribs)
• Dougal18 (talk · contribs)
• Philafrenzy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute involving whether the Episodes section of the article should stay or not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened a discussion on the talk page and so far Edwardx is the only one for keeping the section.

That isn't quite what I said. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

A neutral, unbiased opinion on whether the section should stay or go.

Summary of dispute by Edwardx

On 25 September, User:Dougal18 first removed the section, with the edit summary "Removed episode guide as it is unencyclopedic and irrelevant". I restored it, "Unjustified removal of content". This continued despite my repeated mentions of WP:BRD, WP:3RR and "Use the talkpage please!" Dougal18 responded with "We don't need talk page discussion for something that has no place on Wikipedia". I raised it on the Edit warring noticeboard, and on 26 September, Dougal18 recieved a "last warning" for edit warring, and the page was protected. Dougal18 blanked their talkpage 87 minutes later.

On 29 September, User:BangJan1999 first became involved, starting a talkpage discussion, "Episodes section" on Talk:Celebrity_Mastermind. It is not a long discussion, and I will not attempt to summarise it, except to say that neither BangJan1999 or Dougal18 made a substantial policy-based argument.

We should keep this section, because what notable people do is notable. Of course a game show is somewhat ephemeral, but Mastermind is a long-running (since 1972) serious quiz show, and the Celebrity version has been running since 2002. The BBC episodes guide, rather than the "official" link, would be a better External link if any reader wished to verify the contestants, specialist subjects or finishing order. As I stated on the talkpage, "the content of the list is all verifiable, and could not reasonably be considered to be 'contentious material'. - this list does comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability." Edwardx (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Dougal18

Other game shows like Pointless and The Chase had their episode guides removed/AfD'd years ago under WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:EPISODES. This should be no different. It's also unsourced. There is no info on subjects or finishing positions for some episodes. Dougal18 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Philafrenzy

The objection to the list of winners is that celebrities are being treated better or given more prominence than the non-celebrity winners of the regular series, however, the Mastermind article does also list winners of the competition although those are series winners rather than episode winners I think.

Since the celebrity version of the show is about the sometimes surprising things celebrities know and are interested in, I think the list of contestants and their subjects is the proper content of the article. It is a bit long and lacks references but that could easily be fixed. I also note that everyone mentioned has an article (I haven't checked if any of them are redirects). Philafrenzy (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Mastermind discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator

• Volunteer note - I will be moderating this discussion in attempt to help the parties reach a resolution. Please remember to be civil and comment only on content, not contributors. My responses will be guided towards a resolution acceptable to all parties and in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The dispute appears to be around whether or not the list of episodes is against WP:LISTCRUFT (which is not a Wikipedia policy) and WP:EPISODES (a content guideline). In addition, there are concerns about the celebrities receiving preferential status in the list compared to the non-celebrity winners. There is also a lack of references which could be resolved using a link that complies with WP:VERIFY. Are any of the parties against creating a separate "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page which links from the main article per WP:EPISODES and allows a summary paragraph/section to recap perhaps the more prominent points from the seasons? -- Dane ^talk 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by editors

• There wouldn't be much left in the article and I think the subject choices of the losers are probably as interesting as the winners as the losers appear all to be notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. There are no "points" let alone "pertinent points" to be made in a "List of Celebrity Mastermind episodes" page. That would mean reducing the Celebrity Mastermind page to a couple of paragraphs. Dougal18 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto Dougal18. BangJan1999 22:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone with more than a mere passing interest in the show (either the celebrity or normal version) will have pondered on what specialist subject they might chose. The choices of notable people are of interest and have encyclopaedic value, and they can afford some insight into their interior lives. What non-notable people do is not notable, as set out in WP:BLP1E. Some overall summary of the specialist subjects chosen in the "normal" series might have encyclopaedic value, but not this sort of list. The link to the BBC episodes guide I provide above would meet the demands of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Without the epsiodes list, the Celebrity Mastermind article would be rather thin. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator

• Volunteer note - The editors agree that removing the episode list would result in the article being extremely "thin" without much content. There is no consensus for moving the episodes to a separate list article. Edwardx has provided policy rationale regarding why the list should remain (Verifiability) as well as why there is a difference in this article instead of the regular Mastermind article. Do any of the other parties have policy based rationale for why the list should be removed? Are there any compromises to how the list is presented that may be acceptable to all parties? -- Dane ^talk 01:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by editors

• This was AFD'd back in June https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_The_Crystal_Maze_episodes under WP:NOTSTATS. Maybe I used a wrong policy to nominate it for deletion. There is no episode guide to the celeb episodes either - the celebs aren't even mentioned in the Crystal Maze article. Mentioning the results here would be inconsistent. I don't know what notability a puppet's (Hacker T Dog) specialist subject has or what insight it has into his personal life. Chris Stark picking a co worker "The Great Man Scott Mills", Tony Singh doing "History of tartan" and a couple of celebs picking characters from Friends as subjects shows ridiculousness. Why should Wikipedia care about this if they don't? The list either goes or stays in it's entirety. I see no logical reason for compromise here. Dougal18 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think there is any objective way of trimming the list other than by restricting it just to winners, but as I have said, the subjects chosen by notable losers seem as significant (or not) as those chosen by losers. I don't think it need concern us that most of them have chosen pop culture topics, that's their world and the subjects all seem to have articles. If the contestants and the subjects are all notable doesn't this make the content of the article more valid? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The most interesting and notable aspect is the specialist subjects chosen by the contestants. Even if some of them chose subjects that others may view as trivial, then that in itself may afford some insight into that particular celebrity (as for the "History of tartan", please read tartan, and show a little respect to my Scottish ancestors!). The results are perhaps less notable, as each show is self-contained, and unlike the normal series, winners do not go on to further rounds, and ultimately a final. As I've said before, what notable people do is often notable, and is so in this case. All the content is verifiable from the BBC episodes page. Edwardx (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless I've missed something, the BBC website doesn't actually give the specialist subjects chosen for the first nine series', only the celebrities participating.^[1] The first four series' have no information at all, and only the most recent series gives any results at all. Unless there are reliable secondary sources found that can back up the information, I don't think most of the data in the table is verifiable. BangJan1999 19:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator

• Volunteer note - The verifiability of the data in the table is challenged. Specifically above, an episode is shown that does not have the subjects listed. This episode lists the subjects but not necessarily which celebrity answered which subject. Do we have another reliable source that would list this information and allow the information to be sourced verifiably? The editors seem to agree there is no way to trim the list while maintaining its value in the article. If we aren't able to address the verifiability/sourcing, policy would seem to guide us to remove the content. That being said, would the editors involved agree to keep the content if the sourcing can be achieved and remove the content if not? -- Dane ^talk 19:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer note - I will ping other parties later today for additional comments if none received when I check back. Thanks to the editors below for their responses so far! -- Dane ^talk 04:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by editors

• I just realised that UKGameshows.com has a list of everyone who has won an edition of Celebrity Mastermind in order, but still doesn't include other information required for the most part. I still think the quality of the content needs to be taken into account even if all the data can be backed up by reliable sources under WP:VNOTSUFF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BangJan1999 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The dispute wasn't over if the info had a RS or not but if the info had a place in the article. I can't dispute wiki policy so if it is sourced, verified and relevant then of course it should stay. Dougal18 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ali Khamenei (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dr.K. (talk · contribs)
• Icewhiz (talk · contribs)
• Mhhossein (talk · contribs)
• Saff V. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A sustained effort has been undertaken by a couple of users to add a section at the Ali Khamenei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article called "Free Thinking Seats". This section has been reverted repeatedly on the basis of incomprehensible, confusing, unclear statements, copyvios (see revdeled edits at the article history), excessive quotations, puffery, primary sources, and bad grammar. I also have explained in detail my arguments on the talkpage but the opposing users have not replied in a substantive way to the points raised by myself and Icewhiz and keep edit-warring this ungrammatical, confusing, and promotional piece into the article.

Regardless, these users keep adding this piece into the article, modified in some way or other, but without any serious attempt to address, in any detail, the detailed points on the talkpage which oppose addition of this material. In fact, the first time, on 7 October, Mhhossein dismissed my detailed reply as "walls of text". Although my answer was succinct and concise, I AGF'ed about Mhhossein's claim that he had difficulty reading it, and to help him read it, I rearranged the text in discrete and numbered sections but still he gave no reply. When Mhhossein finally replied on the 17th of October, s/he summarily dismissed all the objections and told myself and Icewhiz to tag the section and find new sources. This flippant attitude is the reason I am here at DRN. I also suspect that there may be a language barrier that makes it difficult to communicate with the two editors who keep adding this very flawed piece back into the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy discussions at the article talkpage.

How do you think we can help?

I need the opinions of more editors on this dispute and I would like their opinions on the suitability of the proposed material which is based on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, no secondary sources, no critique by other independent sources, with no background, no explanation, and using bad grammar and bad English.

Response to Mhhossein

• Mhhosein states below: Was it really hard to get the point when it was "some sort of social movement"?

My response is: This is obviously something, still unexplained, and quite esoteric. Despite multiple questions to that effect, "Software social movement", this mysterious "movement" which is both social, and "software, is still ill-defined. How can a serious encyclopædia present such promotional-sounding, vacuous, half-baked concepts to its readers?

• Mhhosein states below: He asked what the "seminary" and was and to avoid WP:OR, I linked the word to it's Wiki article.

This is another misrepresentation. I did no such thing. The disputed text reads as follows:

Formation of Free Thinking Seats was first suggested by Ali Khamenei through a letter to the seminary's graduates in 2003.

As you see, the text does not speak about "any" seminary, it speaks about "the seminary", a "single" seminary, without giving any background or explanation about that specific seminary. This is confusing to the readers.

• Mhhosein states below: I did the same for "Velayat [Faqih]" and "revolutionary". Why should I add unnecessary details to an unrelated article by comitting WP:OR, when the reader can simply click on the word to see the article?

This is another misrepresentation. For my exact comments, see example 5 on the talkpage, which I reproduce here for your convenience:

Example 5

“I totally agree with this and a Muslim revolutionary student devoted to Velayat [Faqih] should overpower opposite arguments in cold blood and with the power of logic and strength of argument, which this capacity exists today.”

• What does that mean? It is unclear, disconnected, and confusing. Who is a Muslim revolutionary student devoted to Velayat [Faqih] and what does that have to do with the "Free Thinking seats"? Who is "Velayat [Faqih]"? No explanations are given. Propaganda-sounding quotes are added into the article from WP:PRIMARYSOURCES with no background, no explanation, and in bad English. ...should overpower opposite arguments in cold blood and with the power of logic and strength of argument, which this capacity exists today. What does "cold blood" have to do with anything? How is "cold blood" connected to "Free Thinking seats"? "which this capacity exists today" is [bad grammar, ill-defined, and] logically unconnected to the previous sentence and it sounds like propaganda.

And this goes on and on

• I do not wish to flood this noticeboard with copies of my responses. But I will reproduce here the disputed text in collapsed form, so that you can judge it for yourselves and give us your opinion and advice. I think the disputed text speaks for itself as to its confusion, unexplained esoteric jargon, and promotional content. (For my detailed, and numbered, replies to many other points, please see the Ali Khamenei talkpage. Thank you.)

Finally, I support Icewhiz's comment about using unfiltered jargon and quotes from the non-free Iranian sources

• Because without commentary and dispassionate analysis from neutral sources, this event and obscure, largely confusing, esoteric jargon, presented unfiltered in the article, is just another means to advertise the regime. The number of quotes in the disputed paragraph is ridiculously excessive, for a short paragraph, and points to pure promotion of the slogans of the regime. I find this tactic completely unacceptable for a serious encyclopædia.

(Non) response to Saff V.

• Saff V.'s response does not address any of the valid points I have raised, both on the article talkpage, and on this board. Therefore, I will not engage further with Saff V. I also think his concluding remark is telling: Are you using this board to challenge that is Iran a country with free thinking or not?! I will not reply to such polemical/political statements. I rest my case.

Summary of dispute by Icewhiz

Non free Iranian media can not be considered RS for the Supreme Leader of Iran - it is actually a criminal offense (a type of blasphemy) to insult him, and this is enforced (including recent cases). The text itself is simply bad English. Beyond these two points relevance/notability is not clear to me (I am on the fence) based on the current sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to source this not-RS assertion - Freedom House: Iran Freedom of the Press 2017 a recent case against a journalist - Iranian reporter sentenced to two years in prison and 50 lashes, Guardian, 8 July 2014. I'll note that per Freedom House (as well as de-jure status in Iran, this can lead to a blasphemy charge!) - "Certain topics—including criticism of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—are subject to long-standing redlines, enforced in part through harsh online and offline censorship" - criticism of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in particular is strictly off limits (a redline).Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: as a means to achieve "software movement and scientific development of the country" - this is not English. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean (if it were just poor English and I understood the intent - it could be fixed). I don't understand "software movement". If I replace "software movement" with "social movement" - the sentence doesn't make sense - one does not achieve "social movement" (in conjunction with "scientific development of the country"!). One starts a social movement, forms a social movement, promotes, etc. I could sort of understand if this was social mobility (so - promoting social mobility and scientific development) - but this requires me to make a few leaps of assumption - that I'm not sure are correct ("software movement" could perhaps also mean in this context a form of thought or changing the thought patterns). This is why Dr.K. kept on probing you for How does software move? Up, down, left, right? How does software move? - it really doesn't make sense!Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for sourcing - some source independent of the Supreme Leader (government included) is required here - otherwise we have a WP:IS problem.Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Mhhossein

I don't have much more to add beyond my TP comments. But I came across some bizarre and weird comments by Dr.K. so that they took me the point I was doubting if the questions were serious or... . Their persistent Warrior behavior even worsened the situation of the article. Just some of their amazing allegations:

• I said "software movement" was a sort of social movement and Dr.K. kept asking "How does software move? Up, down, left, right? How does software move?". Was it really hard to get the point when it was "some sort of social movement"?
• He asked what the "seminary" and was and to avoid WP:OR, I linked the word to it's Wiki article. I did the same for "Velayat [Faqih]" and "revolutionary". Why should I add unnecessary details to an unrelated article by comitting WP:OR, when the reader can simply click on the word to see the article? Are these really serious so that he let himself remove a whole section by edit war? Was it hard to add {{what}} where ever clarification was needed?

Let alone Icewhiz amazing notes on the reliability of a source moderated by Iran's ministry of Science and a source which is the wbsite of "The Office of the Supreme Leader". Imagine that they removed these well-sourced items because they claimed that it was not "clear from the text what these seats" were and that they were "missing a perspective on how free these free seats" were. Was the solution to remove the whole section or add complementary materials to remove the claimed doubts? Editors are not responsible to explain every single words of the articles. I guarantee that there's no "language barrier", but some sort of unknown problems! --Mhhossein ^talk 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think these users really need to receive hard warnings, if the reasoning behind their edit warring are only what they claim here. All of the section was removed due to some self-made and bizarre allegations. More comments will be added at the request of volunteer moderators and/or admins. One of those "The seminary's graduates= The graduates of seminary." Even if your claims are true, which is not if course, how did you allow yourselves to blank a wholes section? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Saff V.

I added text described Free thinking seat (on of Ali Khamenei’s thought) with supportive sources and in three times the whole of text has been reverted. By Mhhossein's clarifications I tried to prepare a better text but It was removed again. Also I can’t believe that using words like seminary or software movement are the main issue, Wikilink and footnote help to make clear that words. I asked Dr.K. about his reasoning behind his reverting, and he answered in an amazing words! On the other hand, that page belong to Ali khamenei and we can added his thought with supportive source to it. The free thinking seat is the idea presented by him. The sources are reliable and there's nor primary source issue. Are you using this board to challenge that is Iran a country with free thinking or not?! Saff V. (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ali Khamenei discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion on the talk page and all users have been notified. Nihlus 22:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]