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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gordon410 (talk · contribs)
• Urselius (talk · contribs)
• Macrakis (talk · contribs)
• J Beake (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)
• Jheald (talk · contribs)
• Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Collect (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The section ‘Romano-Brittonic’ peoples’ fate in the south-east in the Wikipedia article, Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain, claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen, an essayist. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written a paper espousing my stance.

How do you think we can help?

Eliminate the word "competing", or explain why the theories are competing. If it cannot be shown that the theories are competing, the word "competing" should be eliminated.

I have replaced contentious use of the word "genocide" with 'extermination', and introduced the concept of 'forced resettlement', all of which is supported by the Freeman text. This can be seen here, in more archaic and child-friendly wording, on page 28: [1] The dispute is therefore non-existent. Urselius (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I should clarify why I think that this is the case. The dispute seemed, as far as I can judge, to hinge on the contention that the word 'genocide' could mean less than 'overwhelmingly killed off'. The substituted word, 'extermination', has considerably less ambiguity. Therefore, the assertion that the Britons were exterminated or forcibly expelled cannot be reconciled with any evidence showing the large-scale, or majority presence of native British DNA in the present population of England. It is now made limpidly clear within the article that the two viewpoints are entirely competing and mutually irreconcilable, with no possibility of the use of sophistry to make any agreement between them. Urselius (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Quibbling about this is silly, when the entire section needs to be rewritten. --Macrakis (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Agreed with Johnbod: Gordon410 has demonstrated that he doesn't really understand the current literature, or how Wikipedia works, despite many attempts to work with him on Talk. This Dispute Resolution Notice is unproductive. --Macrakis (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Since April this new user has been posting very long screeds to the talk page, though the points he has argued about have shifted. This is almost the only page he has edited. He has suggested a couple of drafts, which were wholly unsuitable, and among other things used primary sources as WP:RS, and failed to use the extensive modern literature. Many of the editors watching the page are (unlike Gordon410 (talk · contribs) or me) pretty familiar with the current literature, and have responded very patiently to him, causing him to relocate his problem. His comment above "Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false," seems clearly wrong, and the balance between expulsion or eradication and assimilation is exactly the sort of question that leads to a good, long-running academic controversy, which I think is what has happened. No doubt the whole, much argued-over, article could be improved, but Gordon410's complaints seem without merit. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It boggles my mind how this portrayal of Anglo-Saxon history can be misunderstood; it's a crystal-clear extermination narrative (as was still the overwhelmingly predominant narrative when Tolkien wrote English and Welsh), based on the well-known linguistic argument, and completely incompatible with the assimilation hypothesis. (True, this author at least does allow for some minor admixture, but he dismisses it as ultimately unimportant.) Frankly, there's some serious comprehension issue here if you think these can somehow be reconciled. More importantly, it's portrayed as a controversy throughout the academic literature. It's not our call to engage in WP:OR and tell researchers that they have no clue what they are talking about and there's no reason to argue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The preconditions for discussion have been met. There has been discussion on the talk page, and the filing party has notified the other parties. Due to the large number of parties identified, I will wait until the other parties respond before opening the case, and will note that this dispute might be better for formal mediation. The filing party states that the two theories are not inconsistent. Is the filing party's position, that the theories are not inconsistent, supported (as the two theories are) by reliable sources such as historians? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Essential information in the article of the two theories were altered after I filed this dispute. Until the article is returned to its original form, I cannot answer this question appropriately. Is this understandable? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I am tentatively opening this case in order to determine whether a full opening will be useful. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each of the editors please state whether they are willing to participate in moderated discussion? Second, will each party who is willing to engage in moderated discussion (or even may be willing) please state in one paragraph what they think the issues are? Third, it appears that the filing party disagrees with the consensus that there is an academic controversy about the nature and extent of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, and says that there really isn't an issue. The following questions are only for the filing party. Is that an accurate summary? Is that statement, itself, based on reliable sources? That is, do some historians say that there isn't a controversy? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

First I would say that if this process were in a court of law, it would be classed as 'vexatious litigation'. The dispute, such as it is, is between two viewpoints: 1) that the polar extremes in published scholarly analysis of what happened in the ethnogenesis of the English people can be reconciled, and 2) that these extremes cannot be reconciled. Those opposing a reconciliation of the extremes can merely indicate the sources themselves and appeal to the logic of the situation. Those supporting a reconciliation do so by the use of novel syntheses derived from selective reading of some sources, which amounts to original research. It is obvious that those scholars who have advocated the extermination, or near-extermination of the native British by incoming Anglo-Saxons did not mean to imply that any considerable proportion of modern English ancestry is derived from the native British. Conversely, those scholars who support the presence of a substantial, or majority, native British ancestry for the modern English people equally obviously oppose the assertion that any programme of extermination or forced expulsion of the native people of Britain ever happened. I hope that I do not have to comment on this matter ever again. Urselius (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs)
• BilCat (talk · contribs)
• Maury Markowitz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a longstanding version of the article. Maury Markowitz has removed almost all content in the article about the A-10's predecessor, the development of aircraft like the A-10, any mention of the design influences of the A-10, content about how the air force came up with the requirements for the A-X program and the A-10 design. Along with being common sense this sort of background information can be found on other high quality pages like the F-4 phantom page and the su-25 page. Any attempt to return the article to the status quo is shortly reverted, demonstrably with the changes not even being read, just as an automatic reflex apparently.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I brought this issue up on the talk page. Waited a few days. Nobody objected. Then I reverted the changes.

How do you think we can help?

A lot of the dispute seems to center around a breakdown of communication. At times I ask a series of leading rhetorical questions. At other times I simply state that the article should cover the '45 ww2 A1 because it's the direct predecessor of the A10, and because the AX designs, including the A10 designs were measured directly against the A1. I mention that other articles like the F4 and Su25 article have a similar format. Bilcat claims not to understand, communications have broken down

I've accepted this case as moderator and have reviewed the FE's statement. Awaiting statement from BilCat to proceed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've told TTT twice already, I'm not participating in this, but he went ahead with it anyway. My objections are detailed on the article's talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

According to the nom's own statment, I was not involved in this dispute. This is correct, as I only learned there was any discussion on the topic after this DRN was already in-flight, and had no communications with the nom before the DRN was already up. As such, I believe I should bow out of this process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Comment on content, not ?contributors. This noticeboard is to discussion of article content issues, not editor conduct. Please keep the comments limited to article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified one of the editors, but not the other editor. The filing party is required to notify all of the other editors. This case is being left open until the other editor is formally notified of the filing here. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - A moderator has accepted this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Moderator note - all parties have made a statement. Two refuse to participate here; therefore, I have no option but to close this case. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:B. Alan Wallace (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chilton (talk · contribs)
• Manul (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article claimed that B. Alan Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for a certain aspect of his proposed theory of consciousness, namely what he calls substrate consciousness. I haven't found any such statement in any of his writings or speeches, although he does sometimes reference quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, eg. when criticizing reductive materialism* or discussing other aspects of this theory. Unfortunately, the source given in the article (a blog post by Steven Novella) also mixes these things up and makes this claim, without providing anything to back it up. I pointed it out to the other editor involved and asked for a primary source (eg. an interview or book by Wallace), but he insists that it is my obligation to supply a source to contradict Novella. This is pretty much impossible, as it would have to imply that Wallace never stated what Novella says he did, which is a very specific claim. I also don't think Wikipedia requires providing contradicting sources as the only possible justification for deletions.

I replaced the controversial ciaim with another, which is also supported by sources in my opinion, but the other editor disagrees with that.

He also has a problem with the phrase "a concept originating in Buddhism", even though it is sourced (see discussion for details).

*Note: criticizing reductive materialism doesn't count as supporting this particular theory of consciousness IMHO, as there are many nonreductive accounts of consciousness. It would be extremely imprecise for the article to claim that.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None outside of extensive discussion with the other editor (with no consensus in sight).

How do you think we can help?

Read the talk page, express your opinion on the points mentioned.

• Volunteer note - The preconditions for moderated discussion have been met. There has been extended civil but inconclusive discussion on the talk page. The filing party has notified the other party. I will point out that the moderator, when one volunteers, probably will not express their own opinion, but will facilitate discussion between the editors. (If you had wanted another opinion, third opinion would have been a reasonable option, but this discussion is now here, which is also reasonable.) Waiting for comments by the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to ask for someone else's opinion, as the discussion is clearly getting nowhere. Chilton (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If the filing party wants a third opinion rather than moderated discussion, they may withdraw this request and post a request for a third opinion instead. (I will point out that neither a third opinion nor moderated discussion here is binding.) A third opinion will not prevent subsequent moderated discussion here if both of the primary editors agree. Does the filing party want to withdraw this request in order to ask for a third opinion instead? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• I think I'll withdraw the request for now. Sorry for trouble. Chilton (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Here

Users involved

• Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs)
• Bolter21 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a public forum, Bolter21 accused me of using socks. "He is obviously using socks..." As someone rather new to Wikipedia, I'm trying to understand the policies, and to follow the advice given. According to WP:IUC1.(c), ill-considered accusations of impropriety, Bolter21 clearly crossed that line. Per the same article's advice, I gave Bolter21 the opportunity to correct his/her good-faith mistake, but s/he again reasserted his/her original accusation: "I will apologize to a suspected sockmaster." (I think s/he meant to have a question mark.) Again, following the article's procedures, and prior to raising this to AE, I am filing this dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

One of us is wrong and I'm interested in dispute resolution's take.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:SIG MCX#Criminal Use (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Felsic2 (talk · contribs)
• Faceless Enemy (talk · contribs)
• Miguel Escopeta (talk · contribs)
• Herr Gruber (talk · contribs)
• RunnyAmiga (talk · contribs)
• DHeyward (talk · contribs)
• Therubicon (talk · contribs)
• Thomas.W (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over whether to mention the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the worst mass shooting in modern US history, in the article about the main weapon used, the SIG MCX. The weapon's use has been discussed in many reliable, mainstream sources, has affected the sucess of the manufacturer, and has been a factor in the passage of gun control legislation. The MCX article was only created following the shooting, and the weapon is not especially notable for anything else. No one has suggested any compromise text.

@Felsic2: I think I've asked this before so if you've answered it, I didn't see it and I'll retire in shame. To you, SIG MCX right now doesn't pass muster because the Orlando shooting isn't mentioned there. If someone had created it exactly like it is now before the shooting, would you have nominated it for deletion? I honestly believe the non-Orlando sources I found (linked below) confer notability. Am I wrong? Aren't Guns and Ammo, American Rifleman, etc. reliable sources with enough visibility that they confer notability? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: No need to retire. Perhaps I should have left out the part about the article being created as a result of the shooting. Ultimately, that doesn't matter. While the MCX may meet the notability threshold based purely on publications devoted to firearms, in the general mainstream the weapon is only known for this one event.

The core issue, I believe, is compliance with WP:NPOV and specifically WP:DUE. If there are a hundred sources talking about the weapon in the context of the Orlando shooting, then we're violating NPOV by omitting that information. A secondary but related issue, which I've amended below, is the determination of which sources may be used for weapons articles. If we exclude material about real-world uses of the weapon, and if we exclude mainstream sources, then we're creating a walled garden of interest only to gun enthusiasts and collectors. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If we get rid of stuff that has no interest to anybody outside of enthusiasts, I'll get to work deleting about 90% of all articles on here about anime because I, like a majority of people, don't watch anime and I don't understand almost any of that stuff. This seems to be decently-sourced but is this anything anybody but the most hardcore fans care about? Nobody's disputing that we can't use non-criminal mainstream attention as a standard because for all but a few guns, there's really no such thing. And if you're right, that real-world usage and subsequent media attention are what determine notability, you're talking about going down a really, really dark path because we'd have to have some kind of minimum standard. If a wife comes home and shoots her cheating husband and his mistress with, to take a redlink example, a Mauser P04 Naval Luger, that obviously wouldn't count. But what would? Seriously: in your head right now, come up with an answer. And before you type something up, are you sure that's where the line should be, and had the crime been just a tiny bit less severe, or had one fewer article been published in the paper, that would be the difference maker between creating an article and not creating one? RunnyAmiga (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been talk page discussion.

How do you think we can help?

An agreement on how WP:DUE should be applied to article content would be helpful.

And, whether only sources that are specifically about firearms, and written by firearms experts, can be used, or if academic references and mainstream journalism are allowed as well. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Or more specifically if journalists who transparently have no idea what they're talking about (with the one you prefer to bring up containing a major error in the title of the piece) are valid sources on what they're talking about. Herr Gruber (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the claims made above: the claim that it has resulted in the passage of legislation is false (the legislation in question is 12 bills in California introduced last December), the "reliable, mainstream sources" are news articles (hence the notes regarding WP:UNDUE guidelines on recentism) written by laymen with no meaningful expertise on firearms or crime, and there is no real reason to have the section Felsic2 desires when weapons like the AK / AKM series (which have been used in even worse crimes) do not; usage sections are not a standard feature of firearms articles since reliable sources on firearms do not feature such information (even Thompson SMG devotes all of two sentences to criminal use, due to referencing a gun history book entirely about it). The rifle itself is notable for being used by special forces units and being highly successful for the manufacturer. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To me, there are two questions about weight and notability that, if answered fairly, mean this whole thing will stay stalled. There's a solution but it's not this infinite back-and-forth between everybody listed here.

1. Had the MCX not been Mateen's primary gun, would it get an article? Felsic2 seems to believe no; I disagree. There are reviews from reliable publications (Guns and Ammo, Gun Digest, etc.) that ought to be enough to say it's notable. That the MCX didn't have an article until shortly after the shooting proves little except how behind Wikipedia is on this topic.

2. Had Mateen's primary gun been an obscure, rare gun built by a boutique company, would it get an article? Consensus seems to be no; I disagree. This discussion can get grounded in policy until it's dust yet it would still be strange that a gun that suddenly faced publicity like this wouldn't be considered notable. And if this is correct, then so is Felsic2: it makes no sense that this media firestorm doesn't get a word.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Wikipedia had a few high-output editors who specialize in firearms. I don't know if it's possible to recruit people like that but if it is, we should. Barring that, the encyclopedia will suffer because the SIG MCX article, and probably lots of others like it, should have been created long before June 20.

That said, I moved away from that discussion primarily because the pile-on by (mostly) Herr Gruber, Miguel Escopeta, and Thomas.W was, for lack of a better phrase, fucking gross. (Here's a microcosm: "[t]rying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy," "fanboy cruft," "you're just a big time sink for other editors..." Do any of you actually read this shit before you post it?) Even with this escalation to dispute resolution, it's inevitable that these editors are about to come in, re-state everything, refuse to compromise, throw bombs, and accomplish nothing. RunnyAmiga (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll write a longer comment tomorrow, when I expect to have more time, but I want to point out that this isn't just about the SIG MCX but just as much about the AR-15, where Felsic2 has been pushing the exact same agenda for quite some time now, refusing to listen to what other editors say, refusing to accept that other editors don't share their opinion, and either not being able to understand what they're being told when pointed to policies (in this case primarily WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS), or not wanting to understand what they're being told. Just like on SIG MCX. Making it, IMHO, a clear case of both tendentious editing and refusal to get the point. Thomas.W ^talk 19:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Since my comment (which is highly relevant since this is all about conduct and not content, the content discussion having finished long ago, with no support for Felsic2's views) got hatted I see no reason to spend more time and energy on this, at least not here. Thomas.W ^talk

• Volunteer note - The preconditions for discussion here have been met, consisting of inconclusive discussion on the article talk page and notice to the other editors of this filing. Participation in this forum is voluntary, so we are waiting for responses from the other editors. Due to the large number of editors, if discussion here is also inconclusive, formal mediation may be considered. Editors are reminded that to be civil and concise, both on the article talk page and here. Editors are reminded that any discussion of firearms control legislation or gun politics is subject to discretionary sanctions (but that is a procedure for expedited sanctions against disruptive or tendentious editing, not for suppressing collaborative editing). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Will the editors please keep their comments prior to the case being opened to a minimum, and confine them to content? I have one question for each editor before a moderator opens the case: Are each of you willing to engage in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't really see the point; there's already a consensus here that Felsic's edits do not belong on the page, he seems to just be trying to go somewhere else to get someone to overrule that. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Capital punishment#Blanket deletion. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Urutine32 (talk · contribs)
• Signedzzz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Signedzzz deleted all changes I made to two sections about modern-day public opinion and contemporary era that were not previously opposed by any other user. I asked for a third opinion because he refused to give any explanation for these sections (we engaged in discussion previously only for other issues I don’t bring here, which are the sections about the Tang Dynasty and deterrence). Thanks to the third opinion intervention, I understood that some changes I made to the contemporary era were badly sourced. But I still believe the current versions of these two sections restored by Signedzzz are worse, and contain unsourced materials, while Signedzzz believes that "none" of the changes I propose are "an improvement".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes, Vanamonde93 came for third opinion. He "strongly" recommended me to make a list of my proposals so we can "work through them", but after I published only the proposals for modern-day public opinion, Signedzzz contended "Urutine32, you know none of this is going in the article. In fact it is probably enough to get you banned from editing. Please stop wasting my time." After that, Vanamonde93 declined to further intervene, and suggested me to put the issue to this board in his talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help me to known why Signedzzz opposes the changes I propose, especially for the section about modern-day public opinion, so I can make the necessary changes.

(Redacted)

@Signedzzz: Again, this noticeboard is for content disputes only. Personal attacks are never allowed on Wikipedia, and they are especially unhelpful in dispute resolution. If you are willing to participate, summarize the dispute here without making personal attacks. KSFT^C 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "personal attack", it's a "summary of dispute", as requested. And I don't see what there is to add. zzz (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Urutine32: stop posting on my talk page, as I told you before. zzz (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been some discussion on the talk page, and the other involved user has been notified. Signedzzz, if you are willing to participate in this dispute resolution, the case can be opened. If you are, summarize the dispute in the labeled section above. Some of this dispute seems to be about user conduct. That part will not be discussed here. KSFT^C 11:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I will add a few basic comments to what the moderator has said. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are common but do not clarify the issues, and civility is always required. Comment on content, not on contributors. One of the reasons for this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes that sometimes result in conduct issues, but often resolving the content issue resolves everything. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: You commented above, but you have not summarized the dispute to be discussed here, which is about content. If you are not willing to participate in this discussion, let me know. KSFT^C 22:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see what else to add. Just to be clear, I (and several other users) oppose the user's edits and proposed edits to this article. zzz (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether seeking a formal mediation in this case would be appropriate. Urutine32 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed some off-topic comments above. This discussion is about content. Signedzzz, can you concisely explain why you don't like the edits? Urutine32, I might recommend formal mediation if a discussion here about the issue here fails to resolve it. KSFT^C 20:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe this discussion will never results in resolution of the dispute, so I ask for closing it. Thank you. Urutine32 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't give up so easily, but if you're sure you want it closed and preferably have another way to resolve the dispute, I'll close it. KSFT^C 19:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how we can progress if the other editor did not even issue a dispute summary. Urutine32 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Stoney (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cotton2 (talk · contribs)
• Jax 0677 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Patrolling (I'm new) a put CSD on the article for Wikipedia:Notability_(music) not yet knowing about #Unreleased_material yet. Reverted by Jax 0677. I looked around for options and went with PROD hoping for involvement of other editors. Jax 0677 reverted that and I reverted his once. Now he has 3R by reverting again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Originally patrolled and CSD, reverted by Jax 0677, PROD reverted by Jax 0677, PROD again now 3R by Jax 0677. Jax 0677 says he believes it is a valid redirect search term, whatever that means. I say it's really advertising and fails on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_material.

How do you think we can help?

Either explain to me why it shouldn't be CSD, really, on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Unreleased_material or to me why it should stand.

WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". I performed exactly three reverts on Stoney (album). The {{PROD}} template, which was placed on the article twice states, "If this template is removed, do not replace it". I believe that reverting the PROD template twice involves reverting vandalism, as the article can be taken to WP:AFD. I am claiming Stoney (album) to be a valid search term. Additionally, I was not given the correct link to this article on my Talk Page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gotthard Base Tunnel#popular intiatives success (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ZH8000 (talk · contribs)
• John (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:John removed one single term (surprisingly, plus its reasoning as a note and a related citation) from a phrase in Gotthard Base Tunnel#Politics about the success of so-called popular initiatives in Switzerland, in particular the one about the so-called Alps Initiative.

In a first attempt User:John claimed that it was violating NPOV. I made clear this is not the case, since it is common knowledge in Swiss politics, and actually citable from many sources. I tried to improve the explanation, why it is surprisingly (see improved, but currently removed note). Then he has undone it with the claim that it may be SYNTH. However, again without any reasoning. I asked him explicitly to add his reasoning/argumentation, but he refused to do so. Again, I further tried to improve the reasoning for the usage of this term. Now, he accuses me not to understand the principles of WP, which is not only – pardon me - arrogant, but also attacking me personally instead of providing a reasoning to the subject. I also ask him to make explicit what is actually wrong or what he does not understand. But he consistently refuses to do so and undoes every change, nevertheless. I think, this is explicitly questionable for a such an old contributor and even more so for a sysop!

The text of dispute is the following:

surprisingly<ref group=note>Despite the recommendation by the [[Swiss Federal Council|Federal Council]] from 12 February 1992 to decline the intiative without any counterproposal, and despite the parliamentary decisive recommendation (both chambers) from 18 June 1993 to decline the initiative. To a very large scale, the populace usually follows the executive's and/or parliamentary recommendations about any proposal. Additionally, federal popular initiatives are seldom successful, about 1 in 10, therefore its success is even more remarkable, despite the low majority!</ref>

References to support the explanation are given in the text.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See the dispute overview above.

How do you think we can help?

Please make clear to User:John, a) how reasoning works, b) that he cannot misuse his sysop strength, c) that he should make clear on what basis he makes his claims instead of only referring to very general policies, and d) that he is potentionally violating the three-revert rule. I have no problem at all to discuss this issue to an uneducated editor, which he obviously is (he obviously has not the slightest knowledge about Swiss political processes and circumstances), but he refuses to do so.

• I am afraid that I agree with User:John in this case, the sentence as introduced by you, and repeatedly reinserted by you is not-neutral ('surprisingly'), and the note attached is plain synthesis ('Despite the recommendation by the Federal Council from 12 February 1992 to decline the intiative without any counterproposal, and despite the parliamentary decisive recommendation (both chambers) from 18 June 1993 to decline the initiative. To a very large scale, the populace usually follows the executive's and/or parliamentary recommendations about any proposal. Additionally, federal popular initiatives are seldom successful, about 1 in 10, therefore its success is even more remarkable, despite the low majority!' - 'usually follows', 'seldom successful, about 1 in 10). The attached reference is not supporting the claim, nor the note, maybe unless you try to analyse the presented results yourself. A plain presentation of the numbers is enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Note: no 'sysop strength' was used here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other party of this discussion. A third party took part in the discussion, and has not been notified, but has responded. The filing party must notify the other party. Waiting for the other party to respond, since participation is voluntary. I will comment to the filing party that the purpose of discussion here is not to "make matters clear" about policy and guidelines to another editor, but to facilitate discussion about a content issue. If the filing party wants facilitated discussion of content, that can take place if the discussion is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ranze (talk · contribs)
• Oknazevad (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am attempting to discuss an issue I view as unresolved. When I created a section for that discussion on the appropriate WikiProject (as it is an issue which spans several wrestlers' articles) the section was blanked: special:diff/731788343

I attempted to contact the blanker for an explanation of their behavior, but they simply blanked the question: special:diff/731790666

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than contacting their talk, I also did special:diff/731790496 requesting input on what sort of templates are appropriate to use to notify users that it is not okay for them to delete other people's comments when they are engaging in on-topic discussion at a community location.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping others can give input on policy as it applies to these communications. Was it okay for Oknazevad to delete the section I made on the WikiProject talk page like that?

If I am not able to inquire about their deletion on their talk page then where should I do it?

Additional help resolving the topic matter of the section would also be valuable but that could be a separate and more lengthly discussion. The sort of thing I'd try to use the WikiProject for.

I responded on my talk page. There has been extensive discussion of this WP:STICK at WT:PW, Talk:Triple H and Talk:WWE World Championship over the last two years. Despite the clear consensus against him, Ranze keeps pushing an idea that has no merit and is based on WP:SYNTH. But I'm just going to point to the recent additions at Talk:WWE World Championship, where there is clear consensus against the proposal that has been trotted out repeatedly by Ranze over the past year or so, to the point where others are in agreement that he needs to drop the stick lest he find himself with a topic ban for badgering the discussion repeatedly. Also, I'd like to point out that Ranze never notified me of this discussion. oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the sort of case that can be discussed here. There hasn't been extensive discussion at a talk page, because blanking of questions, either on project talk pages or user talk pages, isn't discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Although the other editor wasn't properly notified, the other editor has commented. I have a question. Are both editors willing to engage in moderated dispute resolution here? If yes, a moderator will be asked to take this case. If either editor does not want to engage in moderated discussion, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight.27s Cross Holder Articles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Roches (talk · contribs)
• K.e.coffman (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The basic issue involves whether or not articles about people who were awarded the Knight's Cross, a German award in World War II, should be kept. Some editors have attacked multiple Nazi Germany-related articles and in many cases articles have been nominated for deletion. Very often, the issue is that an article depends heavily on a certain source which is deemed unreliable because of supposed Nazi leanings. Some personal attacks have arisen and, because there is primarily one editor responsible for the controversy, it seems necessary to request dispute resolution to clarify the notability standards to which articles about Nazi-German recipients of the Knight's Cross should be held. That editor has, by now, created many AfDs, GA reviews, and talk page challenges. The editor seems unwilling to accept new sources or the possible existence of sources. The general logic is that article X depends largely on an unreliable source, so if the content sourced to that unreliable source is deleted, the article no longer can exist on its own.

Other pages with relevant discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history and many articles references therein.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several noticeboard discussions and RfCs are ongoing; none appear to be reaching consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Please evaluate the arguments made by K.e.coffman (primarily) regarding the notability of subjects of articles. The aim is *not* to make Knight's Cross recipients "automatically notable", but we need a standard on what sources can be used to establish notability. What sources are reliable? (e.g. are wartime German newspapers reliable secondary sources on award recipients?) What is to be done with unreliable sources such as those written by people with far-right political views?

• Volunteer note - This doesn't appear to be an issue about the content of one article. This appears to be an ongoing question about notability that should be addressed in a notability guideline. Since WP:WikiProject Military History is active and has a notability guideline, that might be the best place to discuss. Leaving this open in case a dispute can be listed concerning a specific article. If not, this will be closed as referred elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This is the first time I've requested dispute resolution. Many articles are involved here, but it would be possible to select one article to be used as a test case. There have been conversations at both the Wikiproject Military History and WPTalk:Notability (people) talk page but there is no consensus. The relevant specific notability guideline WP:SOLDIER says:

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: ... were awarded their nation's highest award for valour.

What is in dispute is what sources are independent and reliable, and whether the Knight's Cross was really the "highest award" if it was awarded to someone only once. I apologize if dispute resolution is the wrong way to approach this problem, but numerous articles are affected and the discussion on the Military History talk page did not reach a consensus. The discussion has been mostly civil so I didn't want to take it to ANI. Roches (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

If the discussion at the Military History project was inconclusive, then a Request for Comments on the Military History project talk page is probably the best way to address the issue. You might ask for advice as to where else to discuss at the Help Desk or Village pump (miscellaneous). No apology is required for coming here to ask to resolve an issue. I thank you for trying to use a reasonable mechanism to resolve an issue and for being civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Robert McClenon, this isn't the venue. An RfC at Milhist would be the way to get a (micro)community consensus. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Arrow (season 1)#First name or last name? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HamedH94 (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)
• TenTonParasol (talk · contribs)
• Bignole (talk · contribs)
• Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs)
• AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs)
• Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs)
• Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

my argument is that according to WP:FORMAL, it's better to use last names for characters, including fictional ones, as much as we can, though it's not mandatory since WP:FORMAL is an essay. the opposite party's main argument is that we should mention the characters the way they're called more often in the script of the work of fiction itself, while they fail to say why and according to what.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

we've discussed it extensively at the talk page as you can see. they have stated irrational arguments and then left the discussion. they refuse to talk while they want to enforce their position.

How do you think we can help?

maybe as more experienced wikipedians, you can find a compromise. because i'm tired of repeating the obvious.

I am not sure why HamedH94 has chosen to list only TenTonParasol and I here. There have been four other editors involved in the discussion, including Bignole, the editor with whom HamedH94 had the original dispute. For the most part I share TenTonParasol's opinion. Despite a long, somewhat circular discussion, HamedH94 has failed to convince six other editors that the article should change to using his preferred method of referring to fictional characters by their last name, when the convention is to refer to such characters by the name that is most commonly used when referring to them. That HamedH94 refers to the opinions of multiple editors as "irrational arguments" is at least part of the reason why other editors do not wish to engage with him. Personally, I do not think this discussion can achieve anything without input from all seven involved editors. The opinions of the four other editors cannot be disregarded. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've held, counter to Hamed's position, if a fictional character is most commonly referred to or is most recognized by first name, the article may use first name (even if there are no family characters to disambiguate) to be most understandable to as broad an audience as possible, especially if the last name is rarely used. I felt WP:TECHNICAL is applicable here (especially per its citation in WP:BCLASS), though I understand not all will agree fictional characters' names are part of the "technical" aspects of an article about fiction. WP:FORMAL encourages using conventions set by reliable resources, and in my experience, academic writings often refer to character by first name. A fair number of our FAs, FLs, and GAs also refer to characters by first name if it is a name the character is very commonly referred to or recognized by. While I understand these articles are not perfect, this suggests that what is acceptable does not preclude a first name usage. I have stressed that if there is a local consensus to use last names, I have no problem, but my position is that a formal tone does not automatically exclude a first name usage when a fictional character is most commonly referred to or is most recognized by that name. Despite all this, Hamed continues to state that I have cited nothing to support my argument and that my statements are irrational, unfounded, and wholly irrelevant.

I have felt no further need for discussion because the discussion thread has gotten highly repetitive and I see no need to retread the same ground a third or fourth time. I also feel that Hamed has not sufficiently refuted my argument. At the very least, speaking as an involved editor, I feel that there has been no consensus, and in that case, status quo (first name usage) on the article is to remain, and Hamed has edited the article to reflect his position despite this, saying that no further comment opposing his argument means that consensus has moved in his favor. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

My words are best summarized by Geraldo. I think that Hamed has mischaracterized that happened. People did not "stop talking" and just "simply" revert. Everyone provided their rationale, Hamed refused to acknowledge the consensus and proceeded to edit the way they wanted, while stating "no other comments so I guess you all agree with me." What Hamed fails to realize is that consensus is not predicated on senseless, never-ending discussion that circles the same points over and over again. People can effectively lobby their positions and move on from the discussion. At the end of the day, Hamed has been the only one fighting against what every other editors has been saying and doing. There have been countless examples provided, explanations of guidelines, direct exerts pulled, etc. Hamed is sticking with their interpretation of what specific from WP:FORMAL that does not actually explicitly contradict the edits in question in the first place. If someone wants to know what I think, my comments on are the talk page of the original article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have shown support for user Hamed's position, as I believe that when a character refers to another character by their first name they are actually using their full, real name in a casual way, and so, since this is a formal encyclopaedia, we should use their full, real name in a formal way—introducing them with their full name, and then using their last name from then on, unless the first name is required for disambiguation. I stand by this opinion, and use this format at a lot of other articles. However, I recognise that consensus for this discussion is against me, and the discussion was going nowhere due to everone simply repeating their positions at one another with no side apparently budging. So, I stand by my interpretation of the situation, but am happy to defer to the other opinion in this case as consensus seems to pretty clearly point that way. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I stopped participating in the discussion on the talk page as I made my points there and saw nothing related to anything I stated made to refute them. My lack of continued involvement there does not mean I changed my position, I just judged further participation would have little value. Use of common names in works of fiction is well-supported by policy and practice. Even for works of non-fiction, people don't always get referred to by their last name, lots of examples of how what is proper tone to refer to an individual varies and and where first name referrals is proper. I agree with the opening statements by AussieLegend and TenTonParasol. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I was not involved in the original dispute, but I'm adding myself to this discussion to offer an opinion in the style of an RfC. Referring to characters by surnames as a matter of general rule is contrary to common editing norms. It wouldn't make sense to change Happy Days episode summaries so that we have consistent usage of "Fonzarelli", because that's not how the series or the audience generally refers to Fonzie. Nor are we going to start describing the SpongeBob characters Squidward and Patrick as Tentacles and Star, or Tom and Jerry as Cat and Mouse (their oft-used surnames) because both examples are just silly. "Cat runs into the kitchen with a mallet ready to smash Mouse, but Mouse sneaks up behind Cat and ignites a blowtorch under Cat's ass, causing Cat to catch fire." Buffay, Bing, Gellar, Gellar, Tribbiani, and Green isn't as effective as Phoebe, Chandler, Ross, Monica, and Rachel. (We have two Gellars, you'll notice.) Do we remember the much-talked-about soap opera romance between Spencer and Webber, or are our readers more familiar with the names Luke and Laura? I'll point out also that even WP:SURNAME has some flexibility. We refer to Madonna Louise Ciccone as Madonna, not as Ciconne. We don't say Sarkisian, we say Cher. Rajinikanth is not referred to as Gaekwad. There are common-sense exceptions to formal tone, and writing about fiction is one of them. (Note please, that I'm not familiar with the appropriate way to express an opinion in a dispute resolution case, so please move/reformat my comment accordingly if I have botched it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The preconditions have been met, in that there there has been extended inconclusive discussion on the talk page, and the other editors have been notified. Waiting for responses from the other editors, since participation here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Comment in your own sections only, and comment only on content, not on contributors. If there is any more back-and-forth prior to the opening of moderated discussion, I may have to fail this thread. Until discussion is opened, take any back-and-forth discussion to the article talk page. (When it is opened, follow moderator instructions.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Question - The hatting collapse of Hamed's comment in the section for my summary dispute includes the second paragraph of my summary dispute. Is that included in the above caution? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If the hatted material in your section was meant to be part of your statement, you may move it to below the hat. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Query - I was not involved in the dispute, but I have an opinion. Is it appropriate for me to voice it here, and if so, where? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

feel free to add your name to the "Users involved" section and start commenting. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overlong long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. I expect every editor to check on this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions within 48 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not discuss the article at its talk page, because comments there may be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the dispute, so the editors will have to inform me (and outside readers or editors); don't assume any existing knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is, what they think should be done with respect to the article, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A question was asked as to what the rule against back-and-forth discussion means. Do not reply to another editor's statement. On normal talk pages, it is correct and proper to reply, indented, to another editor's comment. I don't allow that in moderated discussion here. The main reason is that, when a case comes here, we already know that back-and-forth discussion on the article talk page has been inconclusive. In cases that come here, back-and-forth discussion has often resulted in each editor saying something to the effect of "I disagree for reason Y", and then, "No. Reason Z applies." If the case comes here, then, in my opinion, we need to try something different, such as having the moderator have control of the discussion. If editors go back to back-and-forth discussion here, the discussion is likely to just go on and on. Does that clarify what I meant by the rule? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

the dispute is on how to mention fictional characters in related articles. we haven't found any specific policy or guideline for that. but there is an essay that states content should be written in a formal tone. it's not mandatory (essay); but since this is an encyclopedia, it's rational to write content in a formal tone. that means, mentioning characters by their last names, not first names or nicknames or aliases or stuff like that. the opposite party claims that we should mention the characters the way they're called in the fictional work itself. but they fail to cite any valid essays to support it. and we're not supporting the last name position firmly. since for the characters having family members, disambiguation by first names might be necessary. --HamedH94 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is whether the consensus is valid. Several editors hold that the series, secondary sources, and third-party commentary, including sources written in formal language, commonly refer to several characters, such as Felicity Smoak and Roy Harper, by first name. This is also common in wider treatment of fiction outside of this particular series. Per the essay WP:FORMAL and per convention and practice suggested acceptable by many FAs, FLs, and GAs dealing with fiction, the article can refer to characters by first name (Felicity, Roy) rather than last name (Smoak, Harper). The consensus prefers first name usage. However, this consensus is disputed as invalid, for reasons including that it is unfounded. At least, the discussion, which became circular and repetitive, is deadlocked into WP:NOCONSENSUS, therefore the status quo of the article should remain. The status quo prefers a first name usage. No action should be taken on the article in this matter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is whether or not there is a consensus to change the existing way of mentioning fictional characters in this article by their most commonly referred to manner to something that is considered by one editor to be more "formal" or encyclopedic in tone. The discussion is basically concluded (in chess this would be considered a stalemate) in the article talk page. There is a recurring visiting of the same points but there is definitely no consensus to make that change and it looks like there is a consensus to keep the page as is. The basis for the proposed change is a well-respected essay that doesn't directly support the use of last names but does support common usage, leaving what is formal tone to what is appropriate for the subject matter, in this case descriptions of a particular work of fiction. Sufficient examples have been given in the discussion of featured articles and lists where it was considered proper tone to refer to fictional characters by their first names that that use in the article in question conforms to what is considered normal and proper for Wikipedia as a whole. Also there are sufficient examples in non-fiction biographical articles where individuals are referred to by their first name when that is the common name, even when the last name is known (e.g. Madonna Ciccone), to undermine any assertion that last name formality is always required. This issue has basically devolved to a style preference issue that should be resolved by consensus, which I believe it has. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that one editor says that we should refer to the characters by their last names, and cites an essay, and states that the other editors fail to cite any essays or guidelines. (Does that editor agree that there may be exceptions to the use of last names? Is this one of those exceptions?) Two editors appear to state that there is consensus to refer to characters by their first names for this show. (Do those editors base that consensus on a specific policy, guideline, or essay?) There isn't any obvious compromise position. Does any editor have a proposed compromise? Is the editor who wants last names used willing to use first names for harmony? Are the editors who think that consensus is for the use of first names willing to use last names instead to maintain harmony? In the absence of a compromise, will the editors agree to a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

we've agreed with using first names for the cases of disambiguation for the characters who share their last names. that maybe a compromise. but the opposite party hasn't even accepted that. actually in the mentioned article, there are a lot of characters with family members, and this compromise can be great, if they accept it. they firmly defend their position without the willingness to accept that they might be kinda wrong. if you believe RFC could be efficient, i agree with it. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am speaking as one stating there is a strong consensus to refer to characters by their first names, if the character is commonly referred to by that name. Conversely, if the character is commonly referred to by last name, the character should be referred to by last name; in that case, characters who are commonly referred to by last name who share a family name should be disambiguated by first name, regardless. I base this position on the essay WP:FORMAL, which states: Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. In reliable sources relating to this series, characters are referred to by first name; in a wider sense in regards to conventions of formal tone in regards to fiction, reliable sources and academic sources often find it acceptable to refer to characters by first name. I point to these to help establish what FORMAL points to: the style used by reliable sources. I also point to the guideline WP:TECHNICAL, which is summarized in its nutshell: Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material. Though the article refers explicitly to science, math, and similar articles, I feel that it can also be applied to other subjects in a similar manner; I believe the citation in the WP:BCLASS checklist, a quality assessment guide, supports this interpretation. I argue that names of fictional characters can be considered part of the "technical" aspects of a fictional universe, and that to write for the broadest audience possible, using the name that is most commonly recognized feels to me to be more prudent. Though it is not a policy, guideline, or essay, the convention on a fair number of FA, FL, and GA quality articles utilizes a "prefer first names if widely called and recognized by first name; prefer last name if widely called and recognized by last name" approach. This builds a common practice in relation to these types of articles, and they should be taken into account. Personally, I am willing to use last names; however, I strongly stress that this is against my belief of what the established consensus is, in a more wide sense but most especially locally. I more strongly stand by consensus and the principles of this local consensus, and I do not think it prudent to overturn it because of a lone line of disagreement. I am willing to agree to a request for comment. (Really, before this moderated discussion, I quietly considered opening one myself.) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

To the questions asked. The essay used as support for using last names, WP:Writing better articles § Tone, is being misread and does not do so, so there is no support in any policy or essay to use last names when it is not the common way of referring to fictional characters. § Tone does support using "style used by reliable sources", "clear and understandable". Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies § Subsequent use is analogous and may provide some guidance but it is a part of the MOS for biographies which is for real people so works of fiction definitely don't fall under its purview. So § Tone supports using names as described in reliable sources, counter to what is claimed. As to the consensus to use common names that is based on well-understood practice as exemplified by wide and long-lasting GA, FA and FL usage. Also § Tone, which does support using common names and in no way says anything counter to the standard practice. I see no possible compromise in this issue, it would be too disruptive to standard practice in existing articles of works of fiction and disruptive to the project as a whole to set this type of precedent. Last names are already used in works of fiction when that is the common way of referring to the characters in question as documented in the source material and reliable secondary and tertiary sources. If an RfC were started, I would of course, contribute but I think it is pointless as the result will be pretty obvious particularly if it goes beyond the existing small pool of experienced editors that have been following these recent discussions and expands to a wider pool. Might be useful to put this issue to rest. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The above statements are long and do not really help. I will again ask each editor to state their position, this time, in two sentences, including why use last name or why use first name. I will again also ask whether each editor is willing to concede just for the sake of harmony. Does it really make that much difference how fictional characters are called? I will again ask each editor if they will agree to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Referrals to fictional characters must match how referred to in reliable sources with respect to use of first or last name as that is what the readers of the article will need to see to more easily understand what is being described. In this article that means first names for the characters in question. Cannot concede on this for harmony sake as that will degrade the understandability of the article in question to potential readers. I will participate in an RfC, I hope one is not required for closure on this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a preference to refer to fictional characters by first name if this is how they are commonly referred to in their work, are likely recognized by the broadest audience by this name, and are often referred to by this name in secondary sources and tertiary sources (including those written in a formal tone), which is the case with this article. This is also something established as acceptable convention and practice in our highest quality assessed articles. I am generally unwilling to concede because it overturns both a strong local and what I perceive to be a wider consensus regarding the acceptability of this practice. I am willing to participate in an RFC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Lengthier response further above, but succinctly: "Cat runs into the kitchen with a mallet ready to smash Mouse, but Mouse sneaks up behind Cat and ignites a blowtorch under Cat's ass, causing Cat to catch fire" is not as effective as referring to Tom and Jerry by their commonly-used first names. WP:SURNAME is flexible even for non-fiction articles. Madonna is not referred to as Ciccone, Cher is not referred to as Sarkisian. There are exceptions to formal tone, and fictional names are one of them. The comments from the other experienced members of WikiProject television represent common editing practice. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia, not a fans blog. so in my interpretation, we should try to avoid mentioning the characters (fictional or not) by first name. I can't concede like this, but I agree with rfc. --HamedH94 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there is a rough consensus that Wikipedia should refer to fictional characters as they are normally referred to, which in this case would appear to be by first names. However, one editor appears to disagree with the consensus and thinks that we should use last names, based on an essay. This leaves two ways to resolve the dispute. The editor who is in the minority can simply accept the rough consensus as a rough consensus, or we can have a Request for Consensus. The editors who have responded above are in agreement with the RFC, although some would prefer not to have to go through with it, since there already is rough consensus. Unless there are multiple objections, or unless the one editor agrees to the use of first names, this thread will be closed via an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The fourth statements by editors was the correct place for a first statement in the fourth set of comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I made an error is referring to Request for Consensus, probably through wishful thinking, the hope that this problem can be resolved. However, although the name for the RFC process is Request for Comments, I will point out that it does establish formal consensus, and that editing against the consensus of an RFC, when it does establish consensus, is considered disruptive editing. So my question is: Will the one editor agree to the consensus expressed here, or is an RFC necessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

i agree with rfc. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should place my comment here, as this is technically my first statement, not my fourth, but it seems more logical to add it here. Firstly, a minor point, RfC means "Requests for Comments", not "Request for Consensus" and, like this discussion, an RfC is not binding. That said, as the moderator has now indicated, there is a rough consensus between editors that we should refer to fictional characters by their common name. That consensus has been strengthened with the addition of Cyphoidbomb's unsolicited comments, yet still we have one editor apparently not willing to just accept the consensus and move on, despite six editors effectively saying the same thing and another saying that he is willing to defer to the opinions of other editors. My concern with an RfC is that if only a couple of editors add their opinions to the RfC, as can happen, where do we proceed from there if the single dissenter is still unwilling to accept the views of the majority? If the others are willing to accept the current consensus as consensus, do we need an RfC at all? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Unseen character#Dispute Resolution on Vera Peterson and Maris Crane (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.79.148 (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.75.162 (talk · contribs)
• 99.192.82.122 (talk · contribs)
• Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unregistered user(s) insist on deleting Maris Crane as an example of an unseen character despite multiple reliable sources^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} (including the creators of the character) who consider her not just an unseen character, but on of the top examples of an unseen character in American television. Justification for removal is that completely original research argument that she is not "the best" example and that the list should be limited. This occurred after User:Rms125a@hotmail.com and I had reached a compromise on the issue. This is the second time this issue has had to come to DRN, the first time it was thrown back to the page talk. The IP refuses to register an account, and his dynamic IP creates an undue burden on me in regards to informing him of discusssion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed extensively on talk page. Rms125a@hotmail.com were able to reach a compromise, but the unregistered IP has contravened that.

How do you think we can help?

1. Provide guidance on whether or not an editors' personal judgement call that a character does not meet conditions of unseen character can trump multiple sources that say the character is unseen. 2. Provide guidance on whether the multiple reliable sources representing Maris Crane as one of the iconic unseen characters of American television qualifies her as significant enough of an example for inclusion.

Yes, there has been an ongoing dispute over questions of whether Maris Crane is, in fact, an "unseen character" as defined by the lede and introduction to the article. I did reach a compromise with the filing party, whom I believe to be acting in good faith, which resolved, as far as I am concerned, the Vera Peterson issue, which he has reopened. However, that agreement isn't binding on other editors, obviously. I am really not sure about whether Maris Crane does qualify because I did not see every episode of Frasier, so I do not have any deep-seated opinions, and am open to any informed suggestions or ideas. I think the filing party may have some additional concerns because the editor with whom he is having a conflict is a dynamic IP, which for some editors creates an instinctive mistrust, which I understand. But, equally and obviously, IPs are allowed to edit and that's that. Quis separabit? 18:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - As the filing party notes, this has been discussed at great length in the past on the article talk page, and has been discussed here, where it appeared that a compromise consensus had been reached. The filing party is right that the shifting nature of the IP address makes notification difficult, but the filing party is required to notify the unregistered editor anyway. Notification on the article talk page would in this case be a reasonable substitute for notification on the user talk pages. Further discussion here doesn't seem likely to be useful anyway. The filing party might consider requesting semi-protection of the page, which would encourage the unregistered editor either to discuss more productively on the article talk page or to come back here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There will be no more comments allowed on this case except for agreement to take part in moderated discussion or non-agreement to take part in moderated discussion until a moderator takes the case. The comments are getting out of hand, and the purpose of discussion here is to discuss article content without reference to contributors or their motives (which must be assumed to be to improve the article). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are some rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The rule against commenting on contributors is absolute in this case, and no deviations from this rule will be permitted. Do not engage in threaded or back-and-forth discussion. Reply only to questions by the moderator, not to answers by other editors. The rule against threaded or back-and-forth discussion is absolute, and no deviations will be permitted. Each editor is expected to check on this case at least every 48 hours, and to respond to all questions from the moderator within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor please explain in one paragraph what their position is, as to whether Vera Peterson and Maris Crane should or should not be listed as unseen characters, and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple independent, reliable secondary sources (see reference list below) have established that not only are both Vera and Maris generally considered to be unseen characters, but that they are generally considered among the most famous unseen characters in popular culture. Even if these characters did not meet an applicable strict textbook criteria for an unseen character, this well-documented widespread consideration that they are unseen characters, that they are the most famous unseen characters, would still establish their significance and notability for inclusion in an article on unseen characters. And the fact is, there is no strict textbook criteria for unseen characters. All the sources in the article which are used to establish a definition of unseen character are limited in scope to one-off live theatrical works (and indeed, most are limited in scope to Enlightenment-era French theatre. These sources cannot reasonably be assumed to be defining the concept of an unseen character as it applies to episodic television. In the absence of an explicit criteria for an unseen character in episodic television, we must rely on the general usage of the term/concept in multiple reliable secondary sources, and Vera and Maris are explicitly and routinely encompassed by this general usage. The personal judgements of Wikipedia editors about whether or not a character truly meets a definition of "unseen" cannot override multiple reliable secondary sources per Verifiability: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors". Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

One editor has commented, stating that Vera Peterson and Maris Crane are not only considered to be unseen characters, but are considered well-known examples of unseen characters. Do either the other registered editor or the unregistered editor wish to comment? (For that matter, does the filing party wish to comment again?) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If no statement is made by the other editors, I will have to close this case without prejudice. If so, the editors will be cautioned against edit-warring and asked to discuss calmly on the talk page, commenting on content. Waiting for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I just came across this DRN discussion from last summer, which was filed by the 99.192-range IP and moderated by Steven Zhang that directly discussed the inclusion of examples in this article. My apologies for not looking hard enough to find this previous discussion sooner. The key elements of the moderator's position were given in the following statements:

• "As Wikipedians, it's our role to report on what reliable sources say about a subject, and not necessarily to argue or debate over the content of said reliable sources."
• "I think we come back to the point about us stating what references state, rather than our interpretation. The lede of the article or the top of the "examples" section" could have something along the lines of "X a claim/state/give Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as an unseen character, as she is never seen, but is only described." Or go with something similar. This can sometimes be a reasonable compromise. By doing this, we aren't making assumptions, but stating what sources say."
• "I think we should try and change it to something we can all live with, but I disagree a straight dictionary definition is the way to go here, though we do need something in the article title to describe the concept of an unseen character. If we have sources that describe the concept (which we do, as per 99.192), I would suggest we use those as the basis for the definition in the article title. For inclusions on the list however, we go with citing reliable sources that describe the inclusions as unseen/invisible characters - because it's the reliable sources role to interpret the part characters play in the respective works and determine if they fit the definition, and not ours. (emphasis by Mmyers1976)"
• "It is still our role as Wikipedians to cite reliable sources that cite the respective characters as an example of an unseen character and not to synthesise that because X character did y and z that they are unseen character (as another but unrelated example, we do not take the fact that someone like Osama Bin Laden was responsible for bombings and state as a result "Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist", we state "Osama Bin Laden has been described by xyz sources as a terrorist". (emphasis by Mmyers1976)"

In a nutshell, moderator Steven Zhang's analysis of the issue was that the definition of "unseen character" in the lede is problematic, but if reliable sources say that a character is an unseen character, it is appropriate to put that in the article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Ethnic slurs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ChronoFrog (talk · contribs)
• Electoralist (talk · contribs)
• Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs)
• musashiaharon (talk · contribs)
• The Human Trumpet Solo (talk · contribs)
• PA Math Prof (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A number of editors on one side of the dispute are not satisfied with the way the recent RfC ended, and I believe that a breach of Wikipedia policy (notably WP:CONSENSUS) has occurred. The RfC discussion was extensive and lasted for a few weeks, but a decision was recently made by an administrator on the basis of majority vote, rather than the strength of arguments, which is inconsistent with how consensus is supposed to be achieved per Wikipedia policy. None of the concerns raised by the opposing parties were sufficiently addressed by the arguments presented on the talk page or by the administrator who made the final decision.

As for the dispute itself, it was about whether or not Jews should be categorized as West Asian/Middle Eastern. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries and C) genetic admixture with foreign populations. Others argued, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are a national group with collective ties to the Levant, as well as the anthropological criteria (notably Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), that Jews belong under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were refuted on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to that particular territory; rather, this is defined through ethnogenesis, and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, and Jews are no exception. None of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all.

To Human Trumpet Solo and musashiaharon, the reason I included you both is because you provided many of the arguments and sources alluded above, which I feel were more or less ignored. I apologize if I did so without your consent. I assumed you would want to take part in this as well.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Mediation was suggested two times, but was rejected twice.

User:ChronoFrog fails to mention that he, in fact, rejected the offer of mediation when it was made during the RFC. Electoralist (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

And you rejected it afterwards.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

After the RFC had concluded with a definitive decision. Electoralist (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the decision gave you what you wanted, without effectively taking into account the concerns that were raised.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

Sufficiently addressing the concerns articulated above, or suggesting alternative proposals.

This looks to me like an attempt at Forum shopping. The complainant is simply, a priori, rejecting the validity of any arguments he disagrees with and therefore assumes that the fact that the closing admin concluded differently from him means the admin must have made some mistake but he does not explain what that breach of policy is other than to assert his arguments were the correct ones therefore rejection of those arguments is somehow a policy breach.

@Deryck Chan: whom ChronoFrog has not seen fit to contact, closed the RFC with the following comments: "The conclusion of the debate is, by a thin margin of opinion and argument, that Jews should form a standalone category. A significant minority of editors argued for Jews to be included under Asian alongside Arabs, but there is a stronger majority opinion who prefer not to put them under Asian because the Jews' strong African and European affiliation means they don't fit neatly into the categorisation used by this template. An alternative proposal, to move slurs against Jews into a separate category for religious slurs, did not gain support either. Deryck C. 13:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)" - IMHO, User:ChronoFrog has not said anything that disproves anything Deryck C found. Electoralist (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Except no counter-arguments were presented whatsoever, other than repeated assertions of your initial claims. "Oh, but I just disagree with you" is not enough in light of obvious negation of facts and WP:RS.

And I did explain what that breach of policy was. He used majority votes to make a decision, which goes against WP:CONSENSUS. This is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. ChronoFrog (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"IMHO, User:ChronoFrog has not said anything that disproves anything Deryck C found." We did. Several times, in fact. Some of these counter-points can be seen in the main DRN posting.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You claimed the breach of policy was that Deryck C went by majority vote "rather than the strength of arguments". Frankly, that is a subjective claim since it assumes your argument was stronger than those you disagreed with, which takes us back to my initial statement which is that ChronoFrong is "rejecting the validity of any arguments he disagrees with" and therefore concludes that a closing admin who finds opposing arguments to be stronger than his must have made a mistake and therefore breached policy. Electoralist (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that I should have informed Deryk, though.ChronoFrog (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have noted and cited many times, Jews, for the most part, are a Diasporic, Semitic (Afro-Asiatic, Southwest Asian, etc.), Ethnocultural/Ethnoreligious, Tribe/People of Color. So I suggest we list both Jews, Arabs, and any other Levantine groups and their correlating slurs, under a section called "West Asians/North Africans" in the template — either as a separate group from the other umbrella sections, or alongside them under Asians, depending where you consider the Levant/Middle East. Jeffgr9 (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll try and make this brief as I have no desire to be involved in another long-winded argument. I think my counter-proposal to remove all geographic categories would have been the best solution. As for the previous dispute, I believe that User: Electoralist's behavior throughout the whole thing has been highly WP:DISRUPTIVE. He made numerous bids both to remove me from the discussion via accusations of WP:sockpuppeting and to keep the conversation going via WP:Forum shopping. I also provided a list of credible sources, many of them culled from other well-developed articles relating to the same topic. The response amounted to little more than "I disagree".The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

There was probable cause to think you and ChronoFrog were the same user which I detailed at WP:SPI and it was dealt with there. There were not "numerous bids" or "accusations" (plural), there was a single request for an investigation which I did not belabour. I posted, there were responses, I did not reply to the responses or post any other SPI requests or bring the matter up anywhere else and it was dealt with in a day or so. Your saying that there were "numerous bids" is an embellishment. As for "Forum Shopping", I filed an RFC and when temperatures rose during it I proposed mediation, a proposal that was rejected. That conduct isn't forum shopping. Electoralist (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Endgame: Singularity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs)
• Shaddim (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We disagree over the necessity of reliable sources and avoiding original research in describing this game’s gameplay. We also disagree over the definitions of these terms. I say the claims contain new information not included in the sources, derived from his own experiential knowledge; he says putting minor formulation sharpenings based on research is NOT OR.

There’s also debate over whether a mobile app-store listing of an unaffiliated third-party adaptation is a sufficient source for inclusion in the main subject’s article, or whether it gives the apps undue weight. Likewise for a software repository release for the Linux-powered Pandora console (long after the game’s initial Linux release), supported by a forum post on the official Pandora site, currently WP:HIDDEN in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the article talkpage. Extensive discussion on the user’s talkpage. Discussion on Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 July 28#Is reliability necessary for verifiability?, of which we disagree about the consensus.

How do you think we can help?

• Determine whether [3] and/or [4] directly support the claims made in [5].
  • If not, clarify how WP:V and WP:NOR do or do not apply to this situation.
• Determine whether an app-store listing is a sufficient source to make claims about the nature of an app.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other party. Discussion here is voluntary, and the next step is for the other party to reply indicating that they are willing to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The other editor hasn't edited in four days. I will leave this case open for another day and then close it without prejudice to refiling it later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Ethnic slurs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)
• ChronoFrog (talk · contribs)
• Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs)
• Electoralist (talk · contribs)
• Musashiaharon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns how entries relating to Jews should be classified on {{Ethnic slurs}}. An RfC was previously held on Template talk:Ethnic slurs, which I have closed with the decision to classify them "standalone", in other words not as a subgroup of any continent-based ethnic groups on the template. I was an WP:ANRFC admin and was not involved in the debate before RfC closure. I closed the discussion based on my best-effort assessment of the arguments presented in the discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Shortly after the RfC was closed, ChronoFrog filed a DRN request but the case was dismissed as premature at the time (see here). A long discussion, tallying 50kB in text by now, ensued on my user talk page. Much of the discussion was re-arguing points that had already been presented in the RfC, though some new sources and analyses were provided.

How do you think we can help?

Although the discussion continues to be heated, a general sentiment expressed at the long discussion is that we should bring this issue to broader attention around the English Wikipedia. So I'm bringing my own closure and the subsequent discussion back to DRN for everybody's scrutiny. I hope that DRN can provide structured discussion on this matter and come to a binding decision.

I guess I'll begin by explaining why I am concerned about the outcome of the RfC. It is mostly a copy/paste of what I wrote on Deryck's page, but I am on my way out the door so I don't have enough time to craft anything original.

To recap, the dispute was about whether or not Jews should remain in the West Asian/Middle Eastern category, where they had been for the past 3-4 years at least. A number of editors rejected this categorization on the grounds that A) Jews accept converts/newcomers, B) most Jews have lived in diaspora for centuries and C) genetic admixture with non-Jewish populations. Others argued that, based on WP:RS affirming that Jews are an ethnic/national group with collective descent (as determined by countless genetic studies) from Israel, in addition to the anthropological criteria (notably UN criteria/Martinez-Cobo) utilized in every other case like this (see also: List of indigenous peoples), Jews should remain under West Asian. In addition, points A, B, and C were contested on the grounds that A) all nations accept and integrate outsiders to varying degrees, and Jews are no different, B) living somewhere else, no matter how long, does not make someone indigenous to a particular territory (since this would mean that all colonial groups would eventually become indigenous); per Martinez-Cobo, indigeneity is defined through ethnogenesis, not longstanding presence and C) every nation/ethnic group has mingled with other ethnicities to some degree, including Jews.

During the RfC, none of these concerns were addressed in any meaningful way, if at all. Instead, the discussion petered out after a few weeks, seemingly with a consensus that the template was fine as it was (with Jews and Arabs both having their own categories under the larger West Asian umbrella) with no counter-response or RS beyond A ) a non-RS blog (which had immediately been called out as such, with no response) and B ) repeated assertions of earlier arguments (which, again, had been promptly called out with the same counter-points/sources as before, and again, no response). I took it off my watchlist until I found that a final decision had been made seemingly based on majority vote. I went to Deryck's page to see what his reasoning was, but another heated argument with Electoralist ensued soon afterwards. I pulled up a list of RS that Human Trumpet Solo posted (with a few additions of my own) which had seemingly gone ignored in the initial RfC (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deryck_Chan#Challenging_RfC_closure_on_Template:_Ethnic_slurs). He asked me to verify the sources, so I linked him to the article they originally came from. None of the sources provided by Electoralist in justifying his proposal for change were sufficient enough for WP:DUE. One was a genetic study which examined the mtDNA line of Ashkenazi Jews, which I responded to by pointing out that mtDNA is only half of the equation. Y-DNA, in contrast, is overwhelmingly Semitic. Further, I provided a few links to autosomal and Y-DNA studies, as well as Harry Ostrer's book on Jewish genetics.

His other source was a JVL article which only had one citation: JewFAQ (an independent, non-RS). I answered him by pointing this out. Overall, I believe the decision made to be a case of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:UNDUE, ignoring the abundance of WP:RS provided in the course of the RfC arguing against removing Jews from West Asian. ChronoFrog (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed at length and I believe at this point we are just seeing WP:FORUMSHOPPING and I don't see how, given that there has been an RFC that has been closed with a finding of consensus, it is necessary to bring it up again here nor is this the appropriate forum. As far as I can see, the criteria for reconsidering the closure set out at Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures have not been met. User:Cunard has questioned the decision to reopen the DRN here. I'll also add that the small subgroup of editors who have been listed for this discussion lends itself to confirmation bias as it is simply the list User:ChronoFrog chose to notify of the original DRN discussion with Deryck Chan added on.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, Jews as a people have a complex ethnic and genetic history and it is incorrect to say they are a "West Asian" or for that matter European group due to the degree of admixutures. User:ChronoFrog refers to genetic evidence that Askhenazi Jews (who constitute over 75% of the world Jewish population) are matrilineally descended from four European ancestors as "only half the picture" yet his solution completely ignores that half of the picture. A layperson's explanation of Ashkenazi genetics can be found in this LiveScience article Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European and scholarly sources can be found in this article from the European Journal of Human Genetics "MtDNA evidence for a genetic bottleneck in the early history of the Ashkenazi Jewish population", a peer reviewed article which Google Scholar states has been cited by 78 other scholarly articles, as well as "Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish Diaspora" a peer reviewed article cited by 87 other scholarly articles. As has been exhaustively both in the orpginal Talk page discussion as well as the Deryck Chan's talk page, there are several Jewish ethnic groups - Ashkenazi (European) Jews, Shephardic (Spanish/North African) Jews, Mizrachi (Arab or Middle Eastern) Jews (often conflated with Shephardic Jews), as well as Ethiopian Jews (and other sub-Saharan Jews) Desi Jews, Chinese Jews and others whose skin colour are white, brown, black, "yellow", etc. To say Jews are simply "West Asian" looks, to revisit User:ChronoFrog's quote at "only half the picture" as much as saying Ashkenazi Jews are European looks at only half the picture, let alone South Asian, Chinese, and Black Jews. Therefore, listing Jews as a standalone category in the template makes more sense rather than trying to shoehorn them into a particular ethnic subcategory (West Asian, European, or African) particularly when one considers that as a religion, Jews have accepted converts for millenia and will continue to do so meaning that admixturing will continue. While there is no such thing as a 'pure' ethnicity and all ethnic groups experience admixture, the composition of the Jewish people as a religion as well as a culture and ethnicity amplified by the Jewish history of disperal (diaspora) throughout the world means that admixturing has occured to a much greater degree and makes it impossible to simplistically place Jews under a single ethnic category. Electoralist (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Responding to User:Musashiaharon who states that many of the slurs involved support his claim that Jews can singularly be declared Middle Eastern - most of the slurs are actually aimed specifically at Ashkenazi Jews, one is aimed at Ethiopian Jews, one is aimed at Shephardic Jews who have converted to Christianity etc. Musashiaharon also argues that genetics is only one aspect of ethnicity. Culture, language and customs, indeed, are very important elements however there is no single Jewish culture or even language. Ashkenazi culture is distinct from Shephardic culture and the former is traditionally built around the Yiddish language (hence the term Yiddishkeit) which is a Germanic language with Hebrew influences and Slavic elements (depending on what part of Europe its speakers were in) has never been spoken by Shephardic, Mizrachi, South Asian or other Jewish populations. Similarly, Shephardic Jews have their own language traditionally, Ladino, which is derived from Spanish, and their own customs, cultural and even liturgical traditions and the other Jewish populations I mention all have their own distinct cultures and customs and speak different languages. There are overlaps and shared elements, of course, but the distinctions are enough to make it impossible to classify all the different varients of Jews as a singular, West Asian, ethnic group. Electoralist (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This dispute has been continuing for over a month and is still quite active. The core question is how to categorize Jews among the other ethnic groups in the template. Before the dispute began on June 25, Jews were placed next to Arabs under [West] Asians, and had been categorized as such for several years. Currently the choices are to put Jews in a standalone category, or to group them as a Middle Eastern or West Asian ethnicity. (It was previously attempted to categorize them as White/European. This was quickly dismissed, because A) a large proportion of Jews are not Ashkenazic, and B) the beginnings of Jewish ethnicity, regardless the subgroup, are traceable to the Middle East, which still bears obvious influence on their internal and external associations and current way of life.)

Before I state my opinion, I'll describe my criteria. An ethnicity is "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." It makes sense therefore, to categorize ethnicities by the origins of these defining elements. Because of this, I am in favor of categorizing Jews in general as a Middle Eastern or [West] Asian ethnicity, being that each of these defining elements is traceable to the Middle East. This is verified in linguistics (eg. Gersenius' Hebrew Grammar), historical writings (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews), Jewish philosophical writings (Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, and The Kuzari), and in Rabbinical writings on ritual law (Berachot 30a, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Agriculture: Terumot), as well as the Torah itself (Genesis 12, et al.).

Genetics is a topic of secondary importance to ethnographers, who are mostly concerned with culture. Yet there too, clear genetic markers link Jews from all over the world to the Middle East (NCBI: Abraham's Children in the Genome Era). Some admixture with the local populations is present, as with any other ethnic group. However, given the overwhelming influence of cultural factors, this can hardly be said to negate or weaken the existence of the Jewish ethnicity in any clear or specific way. Such converts were considered fully Jewish by other Jews around the world, and were more often than not persecuted and ostracized from their previous social circles (eg. Lord George Gordon).

Germane to this particular template of Ethnic slurs, the slurs themselves give further support to categorizing Jews as Middle Eastern. In particular, "Christ-killer" shows that Europeans positively identified their local Jews to be one and the same as the people who killed their god in the Land of Israel. Similarly, the term "Yid" developed from the High German "jüdisch," etc., which came from the Hebrew "Yehudi," or Judean, after Judah, the pre-eminent, royal tribe among the Jews in their own land (Online Etymology Dictionary: Yid). Parenthetically, Jews at large already had come to be called by that same term ("Yehudi", Judean) thousands of years earlier, regardless their tribal affiliation (eg. Mordecai the Benjaminite in Esther 2:5). Ultimately, "Judean" came to be shortened to "Jew," (Online Etymology Dictionary: Jew) and so even in the slurs themselves, Jews are acknowledged to be a Middle Eastern people. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lancastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lklundin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Absolutelypuremilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beagel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dispute overview

There has been a good deal of progress at reinstating the deleted material. However, there are two unresolved questions relating to WP:SYNTH:

• Whether this section contains WP:SYNTH, bother before and after this edit. See this discussion
• Whether this section contains WP:SYNTH, see this discussion

There are several deletions that have since been reverted, but motivated this request for dispute resolution, see this Talk section:

• Not cross-referencing when text is moved to another article [6]
• Unhelpful re-wording that is not supported by the source ('may be' rather than the word 'estimate'): [7]
• When deletion should be used, rather than the more subtle ^{[citation needed]} and use of the Talk page

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since raising this dispute, there has been good progress via the talk page. In particular, Absolutelypuremilk and Lklundin have helped by reinstating material and explaining their edits and concerns in more detail.

How do you think we can help?

By arbitrating on a way forwards, in particular the claims of original research and synthesis of published material.

• Volunteer note - The filing party has failed to list the other parties (two of whom are identified in the above statement, but another party who took part in discussion is not identified at all). The filing party has failed to notify the other parties of this filing. Leaving this open to provide the filing party an opportunity to list and identify the other editors. It should be noted that this noticeboard does not "arbitrate" a way forward but facilitates discussion between parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for you guidance, Robert McClenon. I have included all four parties in the listing. Lancastle (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party listed the other parties (incorrectly, but that has been fixed). The filing party has not notified the other parties. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties. By the way, describe the dispute in terms of content, that is, that there is a question about whether certain information should be included, not in terms of contributors, that is, do not say that users are deleting material. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. I have clarified which aspects of the dispute remain unresolved in terms of content, rather than contributors, but not sure how to notify the other parties, do I use the 'ping' syntax? Lancastle (talk)

See the fourth bullet at the top of the page. It tells you how to provide the notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. We are making progress on the talk page and I have done my best to follow the guidance on how to notify the parties. Lancastle (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You succeeded in notifying them. Waiting for them to reply as to whether they are willing to discuss here, since discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - One of the editors states that progress is being made at the article talk page. Since the purpose of this noticeboard is to provide moderated discussion when discussion at the article talk page is unproductive, this thread will be closed without prejudice to allow continued progress at the article talk page, unless other editors state that progress has broken down. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to confirm that I'm interested to proceed with the dispute resolution. I'm quite flexible about the form or venue of the discussion, so I don't have objections to discuss it here. Saying this, I have to admit that by my understanding there had been recently some progress at the article talk page discussion, so I believe the dispute resolution seems possible. Before the request was submitted here, the talk page discussion was also linked at Wikipedia:No_original research/Noticeboard#Discussion at Talk:Hinkley Point C nuclear power station; however, so far there has been no discussion at WP:OR/N and no contribution to the talk page discussion has not made through WP:OR/N. Therefore I believe there is no objections to discuss the dispute here.

I would like to clarify my understanding about the scope of the dispute. By my understanding this is mainly about the content which may or may not to be classified as synthesis of published sources. More specifically, it involves the following issues:

1. inclusion of information concerning renewable energy strike prices. This issue seems by my understanding mainly resokved as there seems to be an agreement to include this information in Renewable energy in the United Kingdom instead of the HPC article;
2. inclusion of the Norwegian or Nord Pool Spot prices in 2015 after the Jonathan Gaventa statement on interconnectors. The source says only that electricity is cheaper in the countries interconncted with the UK but does not provide exact prices. At the moment the article does not include the exact prices but the dispute is still not closed.
3. inclusion of details about Hanhikivi, Olkiluoto and Flamanville NPPs as also information about the safety of EPR. Currently this information is included in this article. There seems to be progress on this discussion but it is not solved yet.

In addition to these, additional minor dispute is about the composition of the lead of this article. There is a dispute if some details should be included also in the lead or is it enough to have these details on the relevant sections. Particularly, this is about mentioning the National Audit Office in the lead and the status of EDF (mainly [French] state-owned) and CGN ([and Chinese] state-owned). Beagel (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments concerning provided diffs:

1. [8] The claim of "no cross references" is not understandable. Edit summaries on both articles include the link to another article, so it is in line with the copyright requirements of copying and moving text inside of Wikipedia. As for making link in HPC article to Nuclear power in the United Kingdom , that article is already linked as see also hatnote in the Criticism and organised opposition section, and according to the linking rules this is sufficient.
2. [9] This seems to be a minor formatting issue.
3. [10] This diff includes a number of edits, including edits by the filling editor, so it is hard to comment.

Beagel (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel. I am happy that we are now making progress via the talk page. It was difficult to progress where deletes were marked WP:SYNTH without elaboration, and my main concern was Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_presumed. I also agree that formatting issues are minor and should not be part of the dispute resolution. Lancastle (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2016 (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.