Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 211

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

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

Users involved

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Steverci (talk · contribs)
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
• Brandmeister (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is presently a dispute with regard to how to reflect destruction of cultural heritage and its extent in the lead of the article. I provided published sources and visual evidence supporting destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in the city of Shusha, and but information about that is being removed from the lead.

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

Talk:Shusha#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A community review of the sources provided at talk would help to resolve the dispute

There are sources such as the one from Eurasianet confirming that Azerbaijan is deliberately destroying the cultural heritage of Shushi. That same article also confirms that Armenians have done nothing similar to that degree. Grandmaster attempts to gather as many sources that mention parts of the city were damaged during the war or fall apart due to neglect afterward, and pushes for this WP:FALSEBALANCE to claim Armenians destroyed monuments as well, but the fact is it's just WP:OR on Grandmaster's part. There are no reliable sources accusing Armenia or Artsakh of deliberately destroying monuments.

The other issue, concerning the founding of the city, is that because Grandmaster and Brandmaster managed to find some 19th century source not only briefly discuss the town, and mention Panah but not Shahnazar, they attempt to distance Shahnazar from the fortress's founding, despite meaning Armenian and Azeris sources acknowledging Shahnazar, and even the recent 21 century source of Thomas de Waal, a very pro-Azeri figure, also mentions Shahnazar. --Steverci (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

There is presently a dispute with regard to how to reflect destruction of cultural heritage and its extent in the lead of the article. – This opening statement/premise is incorrect. The dispute isn't about "reflection/wording", it's about why recently introduced edit shouldn't be included in the first place. See the full discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Is this a dispute about the reliability of sources? If so, the reliable source noticeboard is the best forum to resolve the issue. If this is a matter of due weight or balance, this is the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is more about due weight and balance, since nobody is disputing that eurasianet is generally a reliable source. CMD kindly offered his assistance with dispute resolution. Everybody is welcome to join. Thank you. Grandmaster 18:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - This dispute is on hold while User:Chipmunkdavis is mediating on the article talk page. If Chipmunkdavis wants to moderate the case here, it can be opened here. If the dispute is resolved, please make a note here to that effect and the dispute will be noted to have been resolved. This dispute can be reopened if necessary, but for now article talk page mediation is in effect. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I am reopening this case and am notifying @Grandmaster, Steverci, Brandmeister, and ZaniGiovanni: Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis has stated that not much progress has been made on the article talk page, so we will attempt moderated discussion here. I have added CMD to the list of editors, only so that they can participate, because their involvement may be helpful. The editors are asked for read the usual ground rules. I will restate a few of the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are usually not helpful, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for back-and-forth discussion, which is there so that other editors can ignore the back-and-forth. Your replies should be addressed to the moderator, who is asking on behalf of the community. Also read WP:Be Specific at DRN. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, so any statements should identify particular parts of the article that are at issue.

Now: Will each editor please make a statement of no more than two paragraphs, telling what they think needs to be changed in article (or left alone), and why? More detailed discussion can wait. For now, each editor should make a concise statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is about whether Shusha was mostly destroyed in 1992 by Armenian forces after they captured the town (some sources estimate that it was 80% destroyed, others say that it was completely destroyed). That also includes Azerbaijani cultural heritage. I provided multiple sources that attest to the destruction, as well as photo evidence available at wiki commons. The sources are available at talk, in the relevant sections, as well as at User:Grandmaster/Shusha destruction. Some editors oppose to the statement that the town was mostly destroyed. I believe they can explain themselves why exactly. Grandmaster 15:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

There is another facet to it, a separate thread Talk:Shusha#Alliance? explaining why the part of the lead attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda is problematic. So far no evidence was presented to show that Shahnazar is mentioned in most sources that date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan. The related sentence as it stands now is WP:Synthesis, combining different sources to reach the desired conclusion. My proposed solution was to separate those claims into two sentences according to WP:Verifiability and WP:Weight, but it was reverted twice. Brandmeister^talk 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that there are two topics on which there is disagreement. There has been a lot of editing of the article, and I am not trying to reconstruct what the previous versions of the article have been.

There is disagreement about a statement that the town was destroyed in 1992, which is currently mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede section, and in the section on the 2020 Nagormo-Karabakh War (2.6.2). That is currently in the article. If anyone wants to change the wording, please indicate exactly what change you want to make.

There is also disagreement about a statement about the foundation of the town as part of an alliance (2.1), and whether the combination of two statements is synthesis. I don't see this statement currently, so I assuming that it has been removed. If anyone wants to insert such a statement, please indicate exactly what change you want to make, and why the statement is not original research.

After we determine exactly what the contested words are, we can discuss how to resolve the issues about the wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The synthesis statement is in the lead's second paragraph: Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress of Shusha, attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda. (bolded emphasis mine, current version, as of this writing). Brandmeister^talk 08:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Not taking over as moderator of the discussion but thought I should comment), @Grandmaster: you are not bound to make them aware of a case on their talk page as a courtesy twice for the same discussion; if you wish to ping them here to ensure they are aware that the discussion is ongoing and was not closed (as an unfortunate percent of our cases are), you may do so. If they choose to opt-out, they may do so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

When I asked for dispute resolution, Chipmunkdavis kindly offered his assistance to help resolve the dispute. He advised that we drop the 80% estimate, provided by some sources, and mention instead that the town was mostly destroyed. That advise was implemented. However Steverci and ZaniGiovanni continue to object to any mention of destruction of the city by the Armenian forces, despite the fact that this is supported by multiple third party sources. Therefore we cannot close this dispute and move on. In addition, there is no mention in the lead of destruction and damage to Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites, while there is a mention of destruction of Armenian heritage, which I believe is poorly sourced. There is only 1 third party source attesting to that, Eurasianet, but that same source also mentions the damage to the Azerbaijani sites. This one sided coverage in my view is not in line with WP:NPOV, and WP:BALANCE. Grandmaster 13:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Steverci and ZaniGiovanni should be notified on their personal talk pages about discussion here. I see that they edited since the discussion was moved here, but made no comment here. Grandmaster 09:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have requested that User:Steverci and User: ZaniGiovanni reply to indicate whether they are taking part in moderated discussion.

Concerning the synthesis issue about the founding of the town, each editor may either provide an alternate wording that avoids the synthesis, either by deleting something or by disjoining the clauses, or they may provide a brief statement why they do not think that the current wording is synthesis.

Concerning the amount of destruction of the town in the 1992 war, each editor is requested to provide the wording that they think satisfies due weight and balance.

Regarding destruction of Shusha in 1992, I'm ok with present wording. Regarding foundation of town, I support the proposal by Brandmeister [1] to split the sentence to avoid synthesis. Grandmaster 19:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

I think the fourth paragraph is fine as it currently is. Here is how I would rewrite beginning of the second paragraph:

Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress, attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.

The majority of sources that Grandmaster quoted only mention the fortress, not the town. When rewritten this way, it more accurately reflects the sources being cited. --Steverci (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Armenian forces almost completely destroyed Shusha, including its cultural and religious monuments, there cannot be any false balance, like Steverci claims. In fact, the alleged damage to Armenian monuments (which has very little international confirmation) is nowhere near almost total destruction of Azerbaijani monuments. And the fact that the destruction was deliberate is attested by international journalists. This is from the report by an award winning British journalist, who saw how Armenian soldiers were shooting at minarets of a historical mosque in Shusha:

As we left Shusha, a young soldier and his friends were standing in the street, laughing and taking pot-shots with a rifle at the crescent on top of one of the delicately tiled minarets on the town's abandoned Azeri mosque. A few bricks from the tower crashed on to the roof, but as we turned the corner the crescent was still in place.

Jonathan Steele. "Eyewitness: Armenia's looters follow its troops into Azerbaijan - Tit-for-tat pillage of deserted Lachin succeeds a war that may not yet be over." Guardian [London, England], 25 May 1992, p. 22.

Therefore I believe that destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage needs to be mentioned in the lead. My proposed wording is as follows:

After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed, including Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites.

Regarding foundation of the city, I collected available sources at User:Grandmaster/Shusha. Most of them do not mention Melik Shahnazar as a co-founder. Therefore alternative versions of an alliance should be presented separately. Grandmaster 09:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Expect Shushi wasn't "completely" destroyed. Destruction of Armenian monuments has been confirmed by a wide variety of international sources, it is undeniably well documented by videos on social media. Of the handful of journalists you manage to gather, they haven't identified any monuments that were "destroyed". Just left to decay at worst. Because the town wasn't completely destroyed, it's quite obvious that they are speaking in hyperbole. --Steverci (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources say that the town was almost completely destroyed, reduced to rubble, and historical monuments were destroyed and vandalized. Muth writes that "Azerbaijani quarter of Shusha was looted and its cultural monuments defaced or destroyed". I quoted just above a British journalist reporting how Armenian soldiers were using minarets of Shusha mosques as shooting targets. Eurasianet says that Azerbaijani monuments were let fall into ruin or allowed to be plundered. So as we can see, sources say that Azerbaijani monuments were destroyed, defaced and plundered. And we can see on photos what historical monuments look like. Mostly piles of ruins. Grandmaster 09:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Here seems to be what has been proposed.

Destruction of the Town

Steverci is satisfied with the current wording. Grandmaster proposes to change the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lede to:

• After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed, including Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites.

Foundation of the Town

Grandmaster and Brandmeister propose:

• Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan,^[1][2][3] founder of the Karabakh Khanate, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress of Shusha. Others attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.

Steverci proposes:

• Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress, attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.

Questions

First, have I accurately summarized what is being proposed? Second, does anyone agree with another editor's proposal? Third, does anyone want to offer any compromises? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your summary is correct. I believe the versions that I support are compromise versions. They are strictly in line with what the sources say. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that Azerbaijani cultural and historical sites were destroyed, and most sources on foundation of Shusha mention Panah as the founder, without any alliance. Grandmaster 09:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I consider my version of the Shushi text to be a huge compromise, since there are credible citations confirming it is much older than the 1750s. Most of the sources dating to the 1750s are referring to a fortress, not the town, so it's only natural that be reflected. As for the destruction, the Azeri government is openly organizing destroying all traces of Armenian culture from Ghazanchetsots Cathedral. Unless there is a source confirming the Armenian leadership had done anything similar (and Eurasianet confirms they hadn't) it would be an undue false balance to allege any similarity. --Steverci (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

I don't think any source about Armenian leadership involvement is necessary. No one is proposing to make any mention of the Armenian leadership. We are talking about destruction of Azerbaijani cultural heritage. Whether it was done by orders or spontaneously, makes no difference. Destruction is destruction, regardless of motivation. Grandmaster 12:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for back-and-forth discussion". That means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space(s) for the purpose.

There are two proposed wordings on the foundation of the town. Are there any new suggestions?

There are two proposed wordings on the destruction of the town. Are there any new suggestions?

Does User:Chipmunkdavis have any comments, or did he also observe a deadlock?

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I also observed similar deadlocks, both on the Shusha page and on a couple of other pages with similar disputes. My main observation here is that there are multiple disputes over different parts of the lead, and this makes it difficult to handle any one particular dispute. CMD (talk) 02:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for posting in the wrong place. I think the best way to move out of deadlock would be for uninvolved editors to evaluate provided sources, and make their decision. Maybe ask the wider community in some form to decide this. Grandmaster 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster - No. You did not post this in the wrong place. I only wanted the opinion of User:Chipmunkdavis as to how hard to try to get a compromise. The way to bring in more editors is a Request for Comments. If there are no further suggestions, the next step is a Request for Comments, in which case we should agree as to what the choices are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Foundation of the town

As to the foundation of the town, are these the proposed wordings?

• Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s by Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress of Shusha. Others attribute this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.

• Most sources date Shusha's establishment to the 1750s, coinciding with the foundation of the fortress, attributing this to an alliance between Panah Ali Khan, founder of the Karabakh Khanate, and Shahnazar, the local Armenian prince (melik) of Varanda.

Destruction of the town

As to the destruction of the town, are these the proposed wordings?

• After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed, including Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites.

• After the capture of Shusha in 1992 by Armenian forces during First Nagorno-Karabakh War, the city's Azerbaijani population fled, and most of the city was destroyed.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I wanted to let you know I was aware of your rule about back-and-forth discussion. When Grandmaster first violated that rule and you didn't acknowledge that in your following fourth statement, I had assumed you were fine with it. --Steverci (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2021 (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

• Mount Nemrut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ‎HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)
• Kansas Bear (talk · contribs)
• LouisAragon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is presently a dispute on whether Antiochus I Theos of Commagene had Armenian ancestors or not, this discussion can also pertain to that page although presently it is located on the Mount Nemrut page. The phrase in question is “ These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks and Persians.” versus “These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians.” I provided a multitude of reliable sources that say that he did in fact have Armenian ancestors but I’m getting accused of cherry-picking. HistoryofIran has reverted any mention of Armenian ancestors from the article. We need help determining if the sources I have provided here meet reliability and verifiability requirements to support an addition that Antiochus also had Armenian ancestors.

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

[[2]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A community evaluation from uninvolved editors on whether the sources provided are enough to say Antiochus has Armenian ancestors would be great, it seems as if we all agree the sources are reliable so it’s more of a question of interpretation and weight.

Just to put my two cents as an uninvolved user who has looked up to the discussion linked above (but to be honest it didn't seem very helpful to find a solution, literally WP:BATTLEGROUND), and not having enough knowledge beforehand:
As a general note, to my opinion and experiences, it's kind of problematic to trace genealogical tree of the founder monarch and it's usually disputed, especially if it's very old (in this case, around BC 50).
I may actually suggest that removing the ancestors at all, as there is conflicting information. However, it's also certain that there literally is not any single mentions of Armenia/Armenians "about slabs" on the sources, and the king's page on Wikipedia doesn't mention such connections (though worth noting that page also lacks lots of citations). ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 14:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As TagaworShah said himself above, he wants to add “These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks and Persians.” to the Mount Nemrut article, even though the cited sources literally do not support the written info. Moreover, in the inscription/slabs of Mount Nemrut, Antiochus literally himself says this word for word regarding his ancestors; "The Persians and the Greeks: the most fortunate roots of my ancestry" -The Iranian Expanse, page 95; no mention of anything Armenian whatsoever. The full translation of the inscription can be found here [3], remember to click 'continued' down below.

As for those "multiple sources" regarding these "Armenian" ancestors; when one takes a careful look at those sources, it becomes pretty clear that TagaworShah picked brief mentions of a geographic notion of "Armenia" and/or other minor connections, in order to push a partial Armenian origin for the ruling Orontid branch of Commagene which has routinely been described as being a mix of Iranian/Persian/Greek/Macedonian by the vast majority of academic sources. He also initially tried to do the same for the Commagenenian gods [4], though he ultimately stopped attempting that.

Looking at those sources (which I briefly analysed in my sandbox), it also becomes pretty clear that TagaworShah omitted sentences that describe the Commagenenian rulers as being of Iranian stock and their kingdom being linguistically, politically and culturally Greek/Macedonian and Iranian/Persian (such as The Iranian expanse source).

The term 'Armenian' is a geographic one, as the main line of the Orontid dynasty ruled Armenia. Just like Mongol Ilkhanate, who ruled Iran/Persia, were not ethnically Persian just because they are called "Persian Ilkhanids/Persian Ilkhanate" [5]-[6]-[7]-[8]

I have access to all those sources (hell, I possess virtually all relevant books related to Commagene and the Orontids), and will gladly send it to whomever could be interested in looking in to it. One of those sources is the latest Iranica article (came out this month) about the Orontids, which refers to them as of "Iranian origin". The article is written by Margherita Facella, an expert on Commagenenian history. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This is what TagaworShah wants to add/change in the Mount Nemrut article:

• "These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians."

Just to be clear. The sentence is talking about the slabs at Mount Nemrut and what is inscribed on those slabs. There are references that state the slabs display Greek and Persian ancestors. I have not seen any references stating that the slabs display Armenian ancestors/ancestry.

None of TagaworShah's references state that the slabs found at Mount Nemrut display Armenian ancestry/descent/ancestors. His addition of Armenian without proper referencing is WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Foltz 2016, p. 31: “Nemrud in southeastern Anatolia, built by an Armenian king of the Commagene dynasty”; Elsner 2017: “He was a man of Orontid Armenian descent, a family that traced their line back to the fifthcentury BC emperor Darius I, thus claiming both Armenian and Persian Achaemenid origins.”; Brijder 2014: “mixed lineage of Persian-Achaemenid/Armenian, on the one hand, and Macedonian/Seleucid ancestors, on the other”; Andrade 2013, p. 73, 397 “claimed descent from an Armenian satrapal and royal family” “Greek, Persian, and Armenian ancestry”; Stausberg 2015, p. 446 “father of Armenian descent”.

Hello Nightenbelle and thank you for your time. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much left for me to add right now, as HistoryofIran, TagaworShah and Kansas Bear beat me to it, in terms of introducing and describing the issue. As per the material already posted by HistoryofIran and Kansas Bear, when speaking about the so-called "slab" dispute, I believe its nothing more than a case of failed WP:VER/WP:OR on TagaworShah's behalf. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Statement I am willing to mediate this dispute- but before I do... The editors are asked for read the usual ground rules. I will restate a few of the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are usually not helpful, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for back-and-forth discussion, which is there so that other editors can ignore the back-and-forth. Your replies should be addressed to the moderator, who is asking on behalf of the community. Also read WP:Be Specific at DRN. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, so any statements should identify particular parts of the article that are at issue. There has been quite a bit of incivility on that talk page- before we begin- I want to ask if all editors agree to speak only to the mediator, to be civil- meaning do not mention your opinion of the other editor's intelligence, research methods, behavior, interpretation, etc. You are to engage with me, on the subject- supported with sources only. Any deviation from this and I will close this and recommend you go to the ANI. Do all of you agree to this? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I agree to the above preconditions. TagaworShah (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, lets get started. I'm trying to read through all the sources being disputed now. There are quite a few. So to start with- I'd like to ask TagaworShah to please choose the 3 sources you think are of the highest quality that support your side and directly quote the part that supports your statement- along with a link to the sources so I can review them in more detail. For the other side- I would ask if you have a source that specifically says that tis person DOES NOT have Armenian ancestry- I would ask you to put that forward now. only if the source is a RS and says "Antiochus is not of Armenian Descent." Not omits the word Armenian.... but specifically those words. I understand that many sources say that he was a member of the Oronitid rulers- but do any also rule out Armenian ancestors explicitly. Please do not debate the sources at this time- for now- I'm just trying to see if what can be pulled straight form the sources. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing! For my first source i’d like to point out that in addition to supporting Armenian ancestry it also does explicitly say that the inscriptions on the slabs of Mount Nemrut show Armenian ancestry.

Source 1: Mack Chahin (2013). The Kingdom of Armenia: New Edition. Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781136852503.

He is best known from the great burial ground which he built on the summit of Nimrud Dagh embellished by giant marble statues of seated gods and heroes. Inscriptions discovered there opened up an important era of Armenian history since Ervand-Orontes I; showing also the Armenian-Achaemenid origin of Antiochus of Commagene himself

Google books link here :[9]

Source 2: Philippa Adrych, Robert Bracey, Dominic Dalglish, Stefanie Lenk, Rachel Wood. Jaś Elsner (ed.). Images of Mithra. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192511119.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

He was a man of Orontid Armenian descent, a family that traced their line back to the fifthcentury BC emperor Darius I, thus claiming both Armenian and Persian Achaemenid origins.

Google books link here:[10]

Source 3: Brijder, Herman A.G. (ed.) (2014), Nemrud Dağı: Recent Archaeological Research and Conservation Activities in the Tomb Sanctuary on Mount Nemrud. Walter de Gruyter, Boston/Berlin, ISBN 978-1-61451-713-9.

The composed Greek and Persian names of the deities are intentionally chosen by Antiochus, just like the mixed lineage of Persian-Achaemenid/Armenian, on the one hand, and Macedonian/Seleucid ancestors, on the other.

Google books link here:[11] TagaworShah (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, why would a source explicitly deny x ancestry? That's not usually how sources work. Same reason as no source denies that the Mongol Ilkhanate were Persians (or say, Swedish or Italian for that matter). Sources usually don't go by what they think x wasn't, but what they think x was. I'm sorry, I don't mean to debate this, I'm only writing this because I don't think there is such source(s). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I doubted there was as well- I was just checking, as there are some subjects that have been of disputed ancestry and as such sources do exist that explicitly say- no- they are not this. It would have made this very very easy- and I'd hate to overlook an obvious solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay- I have reviewed those sources- and I don't see anything wrong with them- but I'm not a subject matter expert. Would those of you who disagree with them please explain what is wrong with those quotes? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

First off, only one of these sources(Bridjer) was used by Tagaworshah, when he posted his suggested change on the talk page(I have listed the exact sourcing he posted on the talk page including the partial quote, in my section.). And the sentence Tagaworshah wants to add, "These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians.". It is not simply "proving" Antiochus' Armenian ancestry, we have to prove what sources state is on the slabs, not what we want to say is on the slabs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He is best known from the great burial ground which he built on the summit of Nimrud Dagh embellished by giant marble statues of seated gods and heroes. Inscriptions discovered there opened up an important era of Armenian history since Ervand-Orontes I; showing also the Armenian-Achaemenid origin of Antiochus of Commagene himself

This source at least suggests that there are inscriptions stating an "Armenian-Achamenid" origin at Nimrud. No mention of specifics, slabs, monuments, etc. Should inscriptions be enough to infer they reside on the slabs, Nightenbelle? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

He was a man of Orontid Armenian descent, a family that traced their line back to the fifthcentury BC emperor Darius I, thus claiming both Armenian and Persian Achaemenid origins.

No mention of Nemrud, inscriptions, slabs, or monuments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The composed Greek and Persian names of the deities are intentionally chosen by Antiochus, just like the mixed lineage of Persian-Achaemenid/Armenian, on the one hand, and Macedonian/Seleucid ancestors, on the other.

Finally the entire quote instead of a a snippet view. Still no mention of Nemrud or inscriptions at Nemrud. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I must apologize- I missed a key factor in this- That Tagaworshah wants to add a sentence that says the slabs say Antiochus was Armenian.... In that case- Tagworshah- Kansas Bear is correct- you need a source that specifically say "The slab says Antiochus was Armenian." In those words. You cannot take one statement that says "The slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus." and a second one that says "Antiochus was Armenian" and combine those to form one sentence. That is misleading and WP:synthesis which is a form or WP:OR.

So I'm going to have to ask again- do you have a source that specifically says "The slabs display the Armenian heritage of Antiochus."? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The source currently used to source the claim doesn’t mention anything about “slabs” either. It says:

It is clear from the Nimrud Dag monument that Antiochus claimed Achaemenid descent on his father’s side and Seleucid descent on his mother’s

[12]

So wouldn’t that make it original research and synthesis as it is now? Also, I see the sentence itself as a conjunction of two independent but related ideas that are brought together for the sake of being concise. @Nightenbelle: I see you have expertise in English education so wouldn’t the sentence “These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks and Persians” actually be a conjunction of “These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus. Antiochus’ ancestors are Greeks and Persians”. right? In any case I see an easy fix, change the word “Slab” to “Inscriptions” and that fixes both problems.

Also, I think it’s important that we establish that Antiochus had Armenian ancestry here since on the page Antiochus Theos I of Commagene, when I added 7 reliable sources that explicitly said he had Armenian descent, I was swiftly reverted and got accused of “cherry-picking” and “misinterpretation.” TagaworShah (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is not on Antiochus- but on the Mountain. So his ancestry is not the utmost importance for this page. Now, on Wikipedia a sentence can only be conjoined when doing so does not significantly change or affect the meaning or in a sentence completely supported by a single source. In this case- you are taking information from two separate sources and combining them into one sentence- and that is Synthesis which we cannot allow. I'm sorry- but short of a source that specifically says the slabs confirm the Armenian heritage, I'm going to have to close this dispute as your request falls outside of WP policy. So- once more- do you have a source that says the slabs confirm Armenian ancestry?Nightenbelle (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I don’t understand why we’re overlooking the simple and effective compromise of just replacing the word “slabs” with “inscriptions.” Even though the source Kansas Bear provided confirms that the inscriptions are located on the slabs, I am aware of WP policy that Synthesis is not allowed, however, per WP:WEIGHT the vast majority of sources don’t say “slabs” they just say inscriptions, should the article not follow the lead of the vast majority of sources, in fact only one of the sources say anything about the slabs showing the ancestry, while the rest all say the inscriptions, even HistoryofIran is referencing the inscriptions, saying “slabs” would be giving undue weight to a single source. There are plenty of sources that say that the inscriptions on Mount Nemrut show that Antiochus had Armenian descent. For example:

Brijder, Herman. Nemrud Dağı: Recent Archaeological Research and Conservation Activities in the Tomb Sanctuary on Mount Nemrud. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-1-61451-713-9.

”The priest shall offer rich additional offerings of incense and aromatic herbs, on the altars for the sacred honours of the heroic races” (N141FF). By 'the heroic races' Antiochus means his Persian/Armenian and Macedonian/Seleucid forefathers.

Here Brijder is taking a sentence directly from the inscriptions and explaining that it shows his Armenian descent as well.

Mack Chahin (2013). The Kingdom of Armenia: New Edition. Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781136852503.

He is best known from the great burial ground which he built on the summit of Nimrud Dagh embellished by giant marble statues of seated gods and heroes. Inscriptions discovered there opened up an important era of Armenian history since Ervand-Orontes I; showing also the Armenian-Achaemenid origin of Antiochus of Commagene himself

Again inscriptions show Armenian origin.

Canepa, Matthew (2020). The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE. Oakland: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520379206.

…he [Antiochus] emphasized his fortunate roots among the Achaemenids and Seleucids as well his claims to the Armenian royal legacy

Again talking about the inscriptions.

Therefore my new request is changing the whole sentence to “These inscriptions display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Armenians, Greeks, and Persians.” That statement, falls perfectly within WP policy, contains no original research or synthesis and properly reflects the due weight of what most sources say as opposed to right now where the Iranica source cited for the statement says nothing about any slabs. In conclusion, saying the slabs show the ancestry of Antiochus is giving undue weight to a single source while the majority of sources say the inscriptions show Anthiochus’ ancestry. TagaworShah (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, if other editors do not want to replace the word slabs we can easily add another sentence after that one saying “In addition, Inscriptions found at Mount Nemrut also show an Armenian origin of Anthiochus.” That way the article can have a WP:NPOV since it includes the clearly significant viewpoint that the Mount Nemrut monument shows the Armenian ancestry of Antiochus. I think what’s really crucial now as a first step is agreeing that the sources say that Mount Nemrut shows the Armenian ancestry of Antiochus and then either replacing the word slabs with inscriptions or adding a new sentence after the slabs one. I am almost certain that if I were to add a new sentence that says directly what the sources cited above do I would get reverted immediately so I think resuming the process initiated before would be better than focusing on the semantics of a phrase. TagaworShah (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is a source located in the "Sources" section of the article that does support what is inscribed on the slabs;

• The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization, Simon Hornblower, ‎Antony Spawforth, ‎Esther Eidinow, Oxford University Press, page 542;"...Antiochus himself, and the same two series of inscribed relief-slabs portraying respectively his Persian and Macedonian ancestors."

• • "Also, I think it’s important that we establish that Antiochus had Armenian ancestry here since on the page Antiochus Theos I of Commagene.."

This discussion is concerning the Mount Nemrud article. Not Antiochus Theos I of Commagene. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

TagaworShah is under the impression that the inscriptions that mention Armenian are the same as the ones mentioned on the slabs. Yet again, we have no evidence of that. As far as we know, there may be inscriptions that are not on the slabs. Therefore, I am not in favor of removing;

• "These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks and Persians."
  

Which does have a reference, the one I listed above.

If TagaworShah wishes to add;

• "These inscriptions display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Armenians, Greeks, and Persians."
  

that is up to Nightenbelle to decide if this DR covers that and what HistoryofIran and LouisAragon think. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but why are we still debating something we literally have word for word access to? [13] The inscription is also mentioned in this book [14]. Both The Iranian expanse (p 95) and The Hellenistic West: Rethinking the Ancient Mediterranean (p 213) mentions the The Persians and the Greeks: the most fortunate roots of my ancestry/the Persians and the Hellenes, most blessed roots of my family bit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: Here's another source that attests to the same thing: "The East and West Terraces each contain colossal statues of Antiochus and his syncretized Greco-Persian tutelary deities, dozens of relief stelae portraying the Persian, Macedonian, and Commagenian ancestors of Antiochus...." -- Theresa Goell, H. G. Bachmann, Donald Hugo Sanders (eds). (1996). Nemrud Dagi: The Hierothesion of Antiochus I of Commagene (Volume 1, Text): Results of the American Excavations Directed by Theresa B. Goell. Eisenbrauns. p. 3
- LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2021 (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

• Racism against Black Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rsk6400 (talk · contribs)
• Robjwev (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I hold that the current beginning of the second paragraph of the lede ("African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms both during the period of enslavement and after emancipation in the 1860's with segregation and other forms of discrimination.") is wrong because slavery was much worse than "restrictions on ... freedoms". I want to have it removed or changed so that it doesn't describe the situtation of the enslaved majority of African Americans in that way any more.

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

Talk:Racism_against_Black_Americans#Reflecting_prejudice

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Either Robjwev has been unable to clearly explain their reasons for objecting or I have been unable to understand them. Maybe a moderated discussion can help to resolve that problem.

The current overview describes what black Americans went through before and after emancipation. I Agree that enslavement was beyond brutal, but not all enslaved had similar experiences. Not all of the enslaved were on plantations; some enslaved were sex slaves, a majority of women, some men. They faced a lifetime of rape and brutal treatment at the hands of the enslaver and the brothel clientele. Other enslaved were in breeding farms; the fathers were their enslavers themselves. The enslaved were used as lab subjects to advance science and medical fields. But furthermore, the enslaved with specialized skills were given various forms of autonomy; some could purchase freedom. Others traveled abroad with their enslavers only to be forced back into enslavement. Some enslaved were explores that mapped the way west. During enslavement, black cowboys wrangled cattle to the slaughterhouses autonomously and had limited exposure with their enslavers. The editor fails to understand that not all black Americans suffered the same enslaved history; some enslaved escaped north, were freed by enslavers, were the second generation freed, and on some occasions were slave owners too. Northern black Americans or Africans who immigrated to the United States from Europe faced restrictions on their livelihood. Political, social, and economic freedoms difficulties and violence that restricted their movements. Not mentioning them because their struggle did not apply to most black Americans is like not acknowledging Black American history because they are not the "majority" in the United States.Robjwev (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate this discussion, Do both editors agree to participate in this process and agree to the following rules:

1- Editors are to remain civil at all times

2- Editors are to keep their answers concise- approximately 1 paragraph per post is a good goal to shoot for.

3- Editors agree to keep the discussion on content rather than behavior

If you both agree to these parameters- we can start- although, since there are only 2 of you involved- I do want to let you know that WP:3O is a faster available option to get someone to come give an uninvolved editor's opinion and possibly break a stalemate.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I do agree. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Robjwev (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay- I've read the summary and the page discussion. Could you each provide your suggestion for the amended sentence/paragraph? Just what you would like to have published on the page please- commentary will come later. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

African Americans have been enslaved from early colonial times until after the American Civil War. Even after emancipation, they continued to face restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms, being subject to segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynchings and other forms of discrimination. Thanks to the civil rights movement, ... --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of status,Freedman or enslaved, African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms and other forms of discrimination. Thanks to the civil rights movement, formal racial discrimination was gradually outlawed by the federal government, and gradually came to be perceived as socially and morally unacceptable by large elements of American society. Robjwev (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like we are too far off- honestly just that first sentence. So- are there any points of the other suggestion that either of you 100% object to- and if so, why? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Robjwev's suggestion describes slavery as "restrictions on ... freedoms". That is a very benign description of slavery, which in reality was not a "restriction", but a total denial of freedoms, including sexual and personal freedoms. Since the subject of slavery is currently the subject of a heated public debate (especially in the U.S.), we should be very careful here. Additionally, their suggestion removes the mention of emancipation after the Civil War, which fills a whole section in the article's body and should therefore be mentioned in the lead per WP:LEAD. Finally, many African Americans were neither enslaved nor freedmen, but born free. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Slavery has always been a heated public debate in the U.S. I am flexible on some sentences. "The Mention of emancipation after the Civil War." and coverage of all classifications of black existence in the United States pre and post 1865. Risk6400's proposal was trying to exclude all black presence other than those enslaved, changing this into an article that already exists Slavery in the United States , when it's about Racism against Black Americans . This black experience is mentioned in the article and should be mentioned in the lead WP: LEAD Robjwev (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay- so Rsk6400 wants to be sure that slavery is clearly distinct and mentioned as more than restrictions on freedoms- and Robjweb wants to be sure that we are clear that racism was a factor for Black Americans of all types- not just those enslaved. Honestly- I think you both have the same goal- to highlight the injustices. So how about this as a compromise:17:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to being enslaved from early colonial times until after the American Civil war, African Americans, both enslaved and free, have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms and other forms of discrimination including segregation, Jim Crow laws and lynching.

That's a great improvement, but there's still one problem, now a logical one: Since enslaved people were not free, they had no freedoms that could be restricted. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

An afterthought: "other forms of discrimination" occurs twice, that seems to be an error. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

fixed the double other forms.... As far as your logical issue- Slavery throughout the ages had varying stages of restrictions- some slavery was more indentured servitude, some apprenticeships, some were feudal- so there are still degrees of freedom within slavery. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Our average (English-speaking) reader will have formed their ideas of slavery from slavery as it existed in the English-speaking world, i.e. in the U.S. and the British colonies, not from other forms in other ages. More important: The body of the article makes a clear distinction between the situation before and after the Civil War. This distinction is also present in the memory of the African-American community, e.g. causing the popularity of Juneteenth. So why should we want to lump "enslaved and free" together ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be sure- you feel strongly enough about this to refuse to compromise on this wording? If you do- then we will continue to work towards a solution- I just want to be sure I am clear. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel strongly enough to refuse. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Slave codes is a prime example of restricting the enslaved further than what they were already enduring Robjwev (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Rsk6400 does not feel the suggested compromise is appropriate- I would like to offer each of you a chance to propose a different sentence that incorporates your ideas as well as the other side's concerns. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In addition to being enslaved from early colonial times until after the American Civil war, African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms and other forms of discrimination including segregation, Jim Crow laws and lynching. --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Or, based on Robjwev's suggestion below:

Since early colonial times, Black Americans have faced enslavement, Black codes, racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching, and other forms of discrimination. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Black Americans have experienced Enslavement, Slave codes, Racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching and other forms of discrimination. Since arriving in the United States.

Thanks to the civil rights movement , formal racial discrimination was gradually outlawed by the federal government and progressively came to be perceived as socially and morally unacceptable by large elements of American society. Robjwev (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay so we are within a couple words of an agreement.

How about:

Since arriving in the United States in early colonial times, Black Americans have faced enslavement, Slave codes, racial segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching, and other forms of discrimination.

Will that work? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. The lead shall summarize the article, and slave codes are not mentioned in the article. Black codes are. There is also still the problem of logics: Slave codes were not something additional to enslavement, they were the legal definition of the condition of slavery.

I also see a problem of fairness: For the sake of compromise, I didn't insist on marking the difference between the situation before and after the Civil War, although I still think there are good reasons to do so. I don't think that a wording that is essentially the same as Robjwev's is consistent with the idea of compromising. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with adding Slave Codes into the main article. Slave codes were additional restrictions placed on enslaved black Americans, not the legal definition of the condition of slavery. Risk6400 summary ignores the struggles that black Americans not enslaved in the U.S. faced, for example, voting rights (mentioned in the article), so I don't understand why there's a problem with fairness. Robjwev (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If we can trust that article, Black codes were the laws that restricted the freedoms of free Black Americans before the Civil War, e.g. voting rights. I don't see where the struggles of those free Black Americans are mentioned in either Nightenbelle's or Robjwev's last suggestions. If Robjwev wants a more explicit mention of free Black persons before the Civil War, I'd be happy to offer another suggestion. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Go For it. Robjwev (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the arrival of the first Africans in early colonial times until after the American Civil War, the vast majority of African Americans was enslaved. Even free African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms, being subject to lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of discrimination both before and after the Civil War.

Or: Since their first arrival on American soil until after the American Civil War, the vast majority of Black people was enslaved. (2nd sentence as above) Rsk6400 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

From the arrival of the first Africans in early colonial times until after the American Civil War, most African Americans were enslaved.

Even free African Americans have faced restrictions on their political, social, and economic freedoms, being subject to lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and other forms of discrimination both before and after the Civil War. Robjwev (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute solved. I think that's not just an acceptable compromise, but a good one, better than anything I or other persons suggested before yesterday. Special thanks to Nightenbelle for your help and patience. :-) --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur Robjwev (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2021 (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:The Game Changers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RBut (talk · contribs)
• Dumuzid (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

We are editing a synopsis for a documentary. Two editors believe the synopsis needs to be very short. An example would be a description that would be found on a streaming platform such as Netflix. While I believe a synopsis that is in depth is more valuable as it expands on the material, and as such, improves the article.

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

Only discussion on the thread. I have tried to proceed the discussion but the editors ignore my attempts. One of the editors has ignored the thread for over two weeks, while the other for over a week.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By determining whether an in depth synopsis is allowed. Thank you for the help.

RBut, with all due respect, seems not capable of accepting consensus on this. Everyone else who has chimed in (two editors beyond those of us here) thought a shorter synopsis was appropriate, or at the very least a reasonable compromise. While I am said to ignore the talk page discussion, this is not true. I simply have ceased participating because it does not appear to do any good. Being brought here for the second time as the result of one editor's preferred version of this article feels less than ideal. Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have grown weary of this dispute. Everyone else seems capable of compromise. RBut has only been writing longer and longer synopses in spite of everyone else telling him that this is unacceptable, he simply does not listen. jps (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2021 (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

• UFO sightings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chantern15 (talk · contribs)
• JoJo Anthrax (talk · contribs)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wrote an entry to the "UFO sightings in the United States" page on UFO sightings in Malmstrom, Loring and Wurtsmith Airforce Bases. I sourced my information as much as possible with reliable sources but did not have inline citations. The article was worked on by user JoJoAnthrax, and I thank the user for working on my entry. And while the issue of inline citations was resolved by JJA, I feel that much of the important information, such as the description of the UFO, the year range of the sightings, the locations where the sightings took place, the change in wording such as the investigation carried out by the USAF for Echo Flight (not Oscar Flight) was inconclusive as opposed to disproven (only the UFO sighting for Echo Flight was disproven and the missile deactivation after investigating was chalked up to a freak accident), there was no investigation around the sighting at Oscar Flight, but all mention of Oscar Flight has been removed, an incident in the future has been pushed back to the past (an incident with objects like helicopters has been changed to helicopters), mention of the helicopters not being recognized by the authorities has been removed, the description of the investigation has been removed, these are amongst the issues present. I would like a third opinion on how to proceed with the information present in my sources to be represented neutrally and proportionally and with the concerns of JJA present. I also understand that the entry had to be shortened and I appreciate the efforts of JJA in this regard. But as the entry stands currently, I feel that it does not faithfully represent what the sources describe. Thank you.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UFO_sightings_in_the_United_States#Malmstrom_Airforce_Base,_1960s-1970s.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us to represent the information from the sources as best possible within Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

LuckyLouie participated in the Talk page discussion here, so they should be included as a party.

The filer's desired content, removed here and replaced here with a new entry, was a poorly formatted and improperly sourced wall of text that did not match the page's extant material or structure. Additionally, of the 15 sources originally included by the filer, three are unavailable to me (e.g., behind a paywall or lacking a functional link), one is a word-for-word replicate of another, and three are credulous, pro-fringe, and non-neutral. Of the remaining sources, Malmstrom AFB is explicitly mentioned in seven (typically only in passing), with Warren AFB, Wurtsmith AFB, and Loring AFB mentioned in only one source each, and always in passing. This indicates that most of the filer's desired content runs afoul of the policies WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE) and WP:NOT, often fails WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, and contains elements of WP:SYNTH.

I don't have a lot of time for this dispute, but as JJA has pointed out, the issues with the filer's content center around WP:FRINGE and particularly WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is biased toward science, toward reliable sources, and against conspiracy theories and pseudosciences such as ufology. While reliable sources sometimes indulge in WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of this topic, Wikipedia isn't obligated to give undue weight to, or take at face value, the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims of Robert Salas and other former military personnel who are activists in the "Disclosure" movement and promoting the idea that the US government is hiding evidence of aliens/UFOs from the public. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - As the other editor has mentioned, a third editor took part in the discussion, and should be notified. I will open the case for moderated discussion when all editors are notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

LuckyLouie has been notified.Chantern15 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. The editors are asked to read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not always clarify the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not reply to statements by other editors, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion. We know that back-and-forth discussion has not resolved the issue. So address your statements to the community, and to me as representative of the community. Also read WP:Be Specific at DRN. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. The objective of this discussion is to improve the article, so you need to say exactly what you want to change.

Each editor is asked to start by making a one-paragraph statement saying what they want to add to or change in the article, or what they want to leave the same, that other editors want to change. After the statements are made, we will decide what the next step is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like the entry to be returned to its informative and accurate past version, but with more neutral language, trimming, inline citations and more congruence with Wikipedia policy.Chantern15 (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I want the current content, which does not have any issues regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH, to be retained. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

First, is the dispute only about the Malmstrom Air Force Base incident on 16 March 1967? If so, will any editor who wants something other than the current version please provide the exact text that they want? Second, many but not all of the incidents have sub-articles describing the specific incident. Should there be a very short article on Malmstrom Air Force Base UFO incident? The split would, among other things, permit any dispute to be compartmentalized. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if that is advisable, then that should be done.Chantern15 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

There were sightings in loring, wurtsmith and other bases, but they have their own sources, I imagine. I agree that it was a mistake on my part to include too much information on them, I hope that in this current edit, I have cut down on their mention, to only where it is specific to Malmstrom.Chantern15 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

User:Chantern15 has written an account of the Malmstrom Air Force Base incident. It is not very short. It is agreed that it needs work. I suggest that it be moved from here into draft space, and then subject to normal discussion and editing. If the Malmstrom incident is the only issue, then we will be able to close this dispute after the draft is created, and the draft can be edited. A discussion of whether an article on the incident is in order can be either about whether to accept the draft, or, after acceptance of the draft, either editing of the article or a deletion discussion. The participants are asked to comment in the space for third statements. Unless there is an objection, a draft will then be created, and this dispute will be closed. If there are other issues about UFO sightings, please identify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There are other sightings which took place at bases mentioned above, and by JoJo Anthrax, although they probably deserve their own separate mention. I have no objection to this being shifted to the draft space.Chantern15 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

User:Robert McClenon will we be discussing how to best write the summary of this incident as well?Chantern15 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

User:Robert McClenonWith reference to this article: ^[1], ^[2] and ^[3] which use sources from NICAP and NUFORC and in reference to my query here: ^[4], I would like clarity on whether I can use NICAP, CUFOS, NUFORC and other non-governmental UFO organizations as sources. Because NICAP covers the date range of these UFO sightings (1963-1995/6...) over Malmstrom Air Force Base, and LuckyLouie told me that I cannot use these as sources. While on Wikipedia itself there does not seem to be any clarity regarding this fact. I request clear guidance in this regard.Chantern15 (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I have received guidance in regards to this.Chantern15 (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

This article is meant to be a high-level summary of UFO reports, most of which will have separate articles. The summary of each UFO report should be one or two sentences, and should be neutral, and should cite a reliable source. If the UFO sighting was not reported in a reliable source, it should not be included at all. Organizations such as NICAP, CUFOS, and NUFORC are biased sources, and can be reported with attribution to the biased sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

There are two issues about the Malmstrom incident. The first is what the summary, in the summary article, should say. The second is whether there should be a separate article. A draft article will be created, and then the question about whether there should be an article will be decided by the AFC process, followed by normal editing. I will propose that the first sentence of the summary be left in the summary, and the remaining sentences be deleted from the summary.

Editors are asked to comment on the summary of the Malmstrom incident, and to identify any incidents that should be added to the summary article. Other comments are welcome.

I would like to resolve the discussion of the summary of the Malmstrom incident, so that we can then proceed to whether to include any other incidents, and issues about the Malmstrom incident can be discussed at the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of the summary can remain, except, it shouldn't refer to the incident itself as "Echo Flight", "Echo Flight" was the name of a flight of missiles present at Malmstrom, not the incident itself.Chantern15 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

User:Robert McClenon, JoJo Anthrax and LuckyLouie have not come to this page for some time, would it be best to ping them?Chantern15 (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I agree with the moderator's suggestion to process Chantern15's draft article through AFC where a volunteer would be able to evaluate the suitability of the content with an eye to the relevant editorial policies. Regarding the "summary", the current content at UFO sightings in the United States is an acceptable length for a list format and is free from issues regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE or WP:SYNTH, so it (or simply the first sentence of it) should be retained. I don't expect it to be substantially changed as a result of the AFC process, but if it is, it can be modified at a later date. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to retain the article's current entry for Malmstrom AFB, for the reasons written above. Retaining only the first sentence is, however, acceptable. The addition of a long list of inappropriate sources to that single sentence is not acceptable. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a draft article, mostly containing what has been written by User:Chantern15. Some of what is in the draft is in the first person and needs to be taken out. The draft also needs to be formatted properly. The draft article is at Draft:Malmstrom Air Force Base UFO incident. Any further discussion, and there does need to be further discussion, can be at the draft talk page, Draft talk:Malmstrom Air Force Base UFO incident. There are two more questions. The first is the wording of the summary in the main article (and it is the main article that is being discussed here). I have provided a section for back-and-forth discussion of the summary. The second is whether there are any other UFO incidents that should be mentioned in the main article and discussed in their own articles. Please identify any other incidents that we should list, in the fifth statements, and also any other issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in the "Summary of dispute" section, the alleged events at Warren AFB, Wurtsmith AFB, and Loring AFB have not received significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Based upon WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT, those incidents should not be included in the article. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me. As long as the WaPo article containing the reference to November 1975 incident can remain.Chantern15 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I've added a new section to the draft talk page, concerning the last part of the last line.Chantern15 (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I'd like it to read, "An incident, at Echo Flight, on March 16, 1967, in Malmstrom Air Force Base involved reports of unidentified aircraft that allegedly affected the operational status of missile systems at the base".Chantern15 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Just a change in the prepositions to the wording used by JJA to make it more accurate.Chantern15 (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

User:Robert McClenon, After the summary is decided on, I would like to close this dispute resolution. Thanks to everyone for their time and effort, especially the moderator.Chantern15 (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

"An incident on March 16, 1967 at Malmstrom Air Force Base involved reports of unidentified aircraft that allegedly affected the operational status of Echo Flight missile systems at the base"....is better grammar. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I will leave this discussion open for one to two days to see if there are any comments from other editors.

User:Chantern15 - Why do you want the draft deleted rather than brought up to mainspace standards? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

In the future, I will recommend that any proposed additions of UFO incidents be done by submission of a child article in draft rather than by discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to contribute to Wikipedia anymore. I agree with you that UFO incidents should have child article drafts. Since this information is free and editors can do what they like with it, either you could delete if you so choose, or publish it as your own article. I shall wait for two days till this dispute is closed.Chantern15 (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

And since the Black Vault is not considered to be a reliable source, it takes away from how informative I desired my article to be, same goes for NICAP, CUFOS and NUFORC (although these less so).Chantern15 (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I support the suggested wording provided by LuckyLouie in the "Discussion of summary of Malmstrom incident." With Chantern15 no longer wishing to contribute to Wikipedia and explicitly requesting that their draft be deleted, I also support closing this dispute. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with this wording.Chantern15 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

@Chantern15. That is still a bit too vague to be actionable. Here is the version you wrote: [15]. Here is the version that has the consensus of JoJo Anthrax and myself: [16]. You can save us a lot of time if you write a version that you feel satisfies the criteria you have described above, and post it here for discussion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I support LuckyLouie's suggestion, as it aligns well with the earlier suggestion I made to Chantern15 on the article Talk page. The participation of the volunteer moderator in that process would be welcome. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I shall edit the entry which I made (off Wikipedia) and work on a version which I would like to see with the improvements I suggested and post it here.Chantern15 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

I'm still working on my edit.Chantern15 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Here is my post, it requires work but it indicates my thought process:

Rtd. Captain Robert Salas, a nuclear launch control officer at Malmstrom Air Force Base had his statement about UFOs interfering with nuclear missiles at Malmstrom (the 10 missiles, called a flight went off alert status)^[1] covered in many news outlets^{[2][3][4] [5][6][7][8]}which mirrored his statements in a National Press Club meeting in 2010^[9], which Stephanie Mercier writing for Vice points out that critics ^[10] noticed that each of the committee members were being paid $20,000 and all expenses paid for their participation in the hearing^[11]. Leslie Kean writes that on the morning of the 24th of March 1967, then first lieutenant Robert Salas, the air force’s nuclear launch control officer stationed at the base for Oscar flight received a call from a frightened security guard who reported that an UFO flying directly over the Oscar Flight Control Center at the base...Salas immediately woke up the first crew commander, First Lieutenant Fred Meiwald...then within minutes of the call, the missiles started to shut down, one by one. Salas said that “they went into no-go while the ufo were overhead...this means that they were disabled, not launchable”. A week earlier, on the morning of March 16, 1967, 35 miles (56 kms) from Oscar Flight, UFOs had visited the echo flight facility and all of its missiles went down too^[12]. A declassified document, dated March ‘67, but after the 17th, from Strategic Air Command contains a telex, with the subject heading, “Loss of strategic alert, echo flight, malmstrom afb”. It further reads, “All ten missiles in echo flight at Malmstrom lost strat alert within ten seconds of each other. This incident occurred at 6845L on 16th March 1967. As of this date, all missiles have been returned to strat”. The document further includes the statement, “grave concern to this headquarters”, emphasizes the need for “in-depth analysis to determine cause and corrective action” and highlights the “urgency of this problem” and guarantees “full cooperation and support”^[13].

An analysis into this incident which happened at echo flight was forthcoming as documents revealed through a Freedom of Information Act request at the website, “The Black Vault”. The documents describe the investigation as, “On 16th March 1967 at 0845, all sites in Echo (E) Flight, Malmstrom AFB, shutdown with no-go indication of channels 9 and 12 on Voice Reporting Signal Assemble (VRSA)”. Analysis of channel 50 data from E-7 and E-8 revealed that both sites were shutdown as a result of external influence to the G&C (guidance and control), no no-gos were detected by the G&C. A no-go cause of shutdown for the flight would’ve reflected in channel 50 data. The non-detectable from the G&C which could’ve caused a shutdown would’ve been the loss of confirm codes. An investigation of the logic coupler lead to the conclusion that the possibility of external generated signals causing this shutdown would’ve been very remote, as all 10 couplers would have to fail within seconds of each other. And so would’ve a partial reset of all. Investigations into the cause of the event covered cable connections in the Electric Surge Arrestor (ESA) room, the logic coupler, electric failure at the substation, the transformers, the presence of Boeing Company teams (who came after the incident), commercial power, poor switching, microsecond pulses of square waves in the Sensitive Information Network (SIN) lines, EMP testing in the SIN and Sensitive Command Network (SCN), transformer failure in the stock watering area, the interconnecting box, arcing, burnt areas, tampering and adverse power/electrical effects led to either a negative result or were considered highly remote. Tests also took place at Warren AFB and “D” flight. Rumors of UFOs around the time of the fault were disproven (through questioning air traffic controllers and reviewing RADAR data). A similar incident occurred at Alpha flight in the December of 1966. Echo flight had had issues with electric systems prior to this incident.

After the investigations were concluded, upgrades called “Force Mod EMP modification” took place, many which were the addition of major sub-assembly containing zener diodes, isolation transformers and common-mode transformers for each SIN/SCN pair. Modifications independent of these were to the cable assembly set, by revising the wiring to VRSA channels 26 and 27 and replacing all the batteries by the 14th of October (1967). Further EMP/Electrostatic testing was mentioned and conducted. The investigation documentation concludes with, ***the investigation of the incident could not discover the cause of the incident, but it was believed to be a freak incident***^[14].

Robert Hastings observes that “the Air Force remains entirely silent on the Oscar Flight shutdown, which apparently occurred a few days later”^[15].

Scott Mansch interviewed Robert Salas for the Great Falls Tribune, where he (Robert Salas) states that “I think this was a message, just a message. Because they did not damage the equipment. It wasn’t like they destroyed the weapons. It was just a weapon. I believe we have got to get rid of nuclear weapons because they’re so dangerous.” ^[16]

Benjamin Radford writing for Live Science, points out that, “if extraterrestrial intelligences have been watching over humanity and are so concerned about nuclear weapons, why didn't they prevent the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II?”^[17] (Unless I am mistaken, this seems like the Straw Man logical fallacy, i.e. if the aliens disabled malmstrom's missiles, why didn't they disable the bombs meant for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Of course, this, my observation, can't be included in the article, because as far as I know there is no response to this comment, but I wish Ben Radford had come up with a better argument, because I have read his book on scientific skepticism).

(I will need assistance in shortening this part below from “Ward Sinclair...spotted the object”, as I’m unsure of how to keep the meaning of the article intact while keeping it concise)

Ward Sinclair and Art Harris writing for the Washington Post describe an incident which took place at Malmstrom Air Force Base, where an off-duty missile launch officer, by the name of Captain Thomas W. O’brien stated that an aircraft ***resembling*** a helicopter approached the silo area. He and an unnamed deputy were resting in a building when they heard what they ***thought*** was a helicopter rotor. The deputy looked out the window and saw what he described as "the silhouette of a large aircraft hovering about 10 to 15 feet above the ground" and about 25 feet from the launch-area fence.

He reportedly saw two red and white lights on the front, a white light on the bottom and another on the rear. Darkness prevented him from seeing markings or personnel on the object. The object left after a minute or so of hovering, the report said.

Military crews at two other nearby launch facilities reported moving lights in the air on the same evening, but said they heard no sounds.

NORAD commanders' activity logs during that period of time reported another sighting at another unidentifie launch facility in which witnesses said they saw the object "issuing a black object from, it, tubular in shape." Standard radar surveillance provided no clues as to the presence of anything other than known craft in the area.

More detail appeared in reports of sightings on Oct. 30 and 31 over Wurtsmith AFB, where an"unidentified helicopter" flew around the base and hovered over weapons-storage bunkers.

Investigators subsequently determined that ***no military, commercial or private helicopters known to be based in the area could have been around Wurtsmith at those times***. The crew of a KC135 tanker plane, already airborne, spotted the object near the base and attempted to give chase, but couldn't keep up with it.

Several sightings occurred at the Maine air base as well, where objects hovered over the weapons area.Radar and visual sightings were made, and another KC135 was sent aloft to oversee pursuit efforts by a helicopter borrowed from the Maine National Guard -- loring had none of its own.

The object eventually disappeared toward the Canadian border, where Canadian air force jets were on alert. There was no indication whether the Canadian planes spotted the object ^[18].

Jacqueline Alemany^[19] interviewing Luis Elizondo, the former director of the now defunct AATIP, in a response to her question about luring UFOs/UAPs through nuclear powered aircraft carriers, mentions as a part of his answer that, “Now in this country we’ve had incidents where these UAPs have interfered and actually brought offline our nuclear capabilities. And I think to some they would probably say, well, that’s a sign that whatever this is, is something that is peaceful. But in the same context, we also have data suggesting that in other countries these things have interfered with their nuclear technology and actually turned them on, put them online”^[20].

Additionally, with reference to Post-Project Blue Book U.S.A.F U.F.O activities, Howard Blum reports that that Freedom of Information Act requests show that the U.S. Air Force has continued to catalog and track UFO sightings, particularly a series of dozens of UFO encounters from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s that occurred at U.S. military facilities with nuclear weapons. Blum writes that some of these official documents depart drastically from the normally dry and bureaucratic wording of government paperwork, making obvious the sense of "terror" that these UFO incidents inspired in many U.S.A.F. personnel^[21] (although, with this article in mind, ^[22] I would take Mr. Blum's words with some skepticism).

Chantern15 (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)chantern15

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of political parties in Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Scia Della Cometa (talk · contribs)
• Checco (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a discussion for months about which pages to include in List of political parties in Italy. I would like to arrive at the approval of the admission criteria of this page, not yet approved through consensus. In particular, there are 3 issues:

1. The nature of the parties: I want to include among the political parties only those subjects that are described by the sources as "political parties" or with a synonym (for example "movement"). Instead I want to exclude from the list those subjects who are not political parties but who are improperly defined as such in their pages. I am referring to mere regional council groups and parliamentary sub-groups which are not defined as political parties in any source (primary or secondary). The definition of "political party" for these subjects seems to me an original research.

1. The simplification of the rules: I would like to standardize the admission criteria to all parties and remove those that are very difficult to verify.

1. The overcoming of over-representation and of attribution of undue weight to regional parties: according to current criteria, a party (born from a split) needs fewer regional representatives than national representatives to be included in the list, it seems to me a contradiction for a page called "List of political parties in Italy".

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

Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 2#Issues of the page, Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3#Revision of criteria (2), Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3#Approval of the inclusion criteria

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope someone can help us find an agreement on these three issues. Until now it has not been possible.

@Scia Della Cometa and Checco:

I am ready to act as moderator for this dispute. At this point, I will only ask the editors whether they want moderated discussion. Please read the usual ground rules, which will be in effect if the editors agree. I am not yet asking the editors to summarize the dispute, only to state that they have read the rules and will agree to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have read the rules and I agree to them.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

‎Robert McClenon, are there any rules options that don't require response within 48 hours? Checco, one of the editors involved in this case, tends to edit less frequently than that. It might be that Checco is willing to spend more time engaging here, but I figured I'd ask if there are any other options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Firefangledfeathers - I see that User:Checco is a long-time sporadic editor, so that your question is valid. I was about to close this thread with some comments, and I will still close this thread with some comments. I will think about whether to have a low-speed discussion protocol for on-and-off editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I can answer now, but I would like Users SDC, Robert McClenon and Firefangledfeathers that I am very sorry for my lack of response. You can delete my answer, after reading it. Last week I was in a business trip and I had really no time for editing, let alone explaining my views on such complicate issues. However, my opinions on the three points are clear enough from months of discussions with User:SDC. I am not able to edit each and every day, but that does not mean that I am not open to debate, as I have shown for months. Over the last months, most of the proposals by User:SDC have become part of the list and/or the basis for good compromise. Also some of the issues raised here have already reached an agreement in the list's talk page, while others have been opposed also by other users, not just me. I favour a step-by-step approach and I am used to craft compromises and get things done.--Checco (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Checco - There is no need to apologize. Please do not apologize. The objective is to identify and resolve any content dispute. Are User:Checco and User:Scia Della Cometa ready to try to engage in moderated discussion? We can address details such as the schedule after we know whether the editors want to try to discuss. I have unclosed this dispute and put it on hold to see whether this can be discussed and resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2021 (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

• Osteopathic medicine in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ORdeDocsaab (talk · contribs)
• Valjean (talk · contribs)
• Rytyho usa (talk · contribs)
• NRPanikker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are two different things regardless of countries. The first is alternative medicine. The second is the wholistic practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. When a layperson tries to find out who a DO is, they almost immediately search for osteopathy. The Wiki page on osteopathy says _ Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones._ Agreed, but the problem is osteopathy is **not** osteopathic medicine. There truly isn’t any DO who gets a degree saying “Doctor of Osteopathy;” the degree is called “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” Degrees of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different. And this will be held true even if you are in Romania or Latvia. By saying that Osteopathic medicine is different from country to country basis is completely false. Osteopaths are osteopaths. DOs are DOs. First kind learns osteopathy, while second one learns osteopathic medicine.

The Canadian Wiki page is also redundant. It basically says USDOs can practice there unlimitedly; we all know that from the DO degree page.

Proposing:

1. There should only be one Wiki page on _Osteopathy_ and only one page on _Osteopathic Medicine_ without the inclusion of country titles (e.g. in the United States or Canada).

2. Take the _in the United States_ part off of _Osteopathic medicine in the United States_ page.

3. The _Osteopathy_ page should have a hat note saying _Osteopathy is not equivalent to Osteopathic Medicine_ with a hyperlink to the _Osteopathic Medicine_ (this) page.

4. Take the _Osteopathic medicine in Canada_ page off Wikipedia, since it’s redundant and gives a notion that osteopathic medicine is different by country. No. Osteopathic medicine is a discipline. Osteopathy is another discipline. Osteopathic medicine is taught by WDMS registered medical schools; osteopathy is taught by non-medical schools in non-medical degrees.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States#Proposing_new_title_for_this_article.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Take the _in the United States_ part off of _Osteopathic medicine in the United States_ page. 2. Take the _Osteopathic medicine in Canada_ page or any similar page off Wikipedia, because the scope of practice for doctors with an osteopathic medical degree in Canada is explained in the "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine" degree. 3. The _Osteopathy_ page should have a hat note saying _Osteopathy is not equivalent to Osteopathic Medicine_ with a hyperlink to the revised _Osteopathic Medicine_ page.

We have barely begun to discuss and we are currently three editors who agree and only one other editor who disagrees, so we can continue to discuss and maybe form a consensus. We haven't tried to use any other forms of DR, such as RfCs, so jumping directly to this venue is premature. -- Valjean (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other two editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2021 (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

• Osteopathic medicine in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ORdeDocsaab (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are two different things regardless of countries. The first is alternative medicine. The second is the wholistic practice of allopathic medicine and surgery. The Wiki page on osteopathy says _ Osteopathy is a type of alternative medicine that emphasizes physical manipulation of the body's muscle tissue and bones._ Yes, I agree. But the problem is osteopathy is **not** osteopathic medicine. There truly isn’t any DO who gets a degree saying “Doctor of Osteopathy;” the degree is called “Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine.” Degrees of osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different. And this will be held true even if you are in Romania or Latvia. By saying that Osteopathic medicine is different from country to country basis is completely false. Osteopaths are osteopaths. DOs are DOs. First kind learns osteopathy, while second one learns osteopathic medicine.

The Canadian Wiki page is also redundant. It basically says USDOs can practice there unlimitedly; we all know that from the DO degree page.

Proposing:

1. There should only be one Wiki page on _Osteopathy_ and only one page on _Osteopathic Medicine_ without the inclusion of country titles (e.g. in the United States or Canada).

2. Take the _in the United States_ part off of _Osteopathic medicine in the United States_ page.

3. The _Osteopathy_ page should have a hat note saying _Osteopathy is not equivalent to Osteopathic Medicine_ with a hyperlink to the _Osteopathic Medicine_ (this) page.

4. Take the _Osteopathic medicine in Canada_ page off Wikipedia, since it’s redundant and gives a notion that osteopathic medicine is different by country. Osteopathic medicine is a discipline. Osteopathy is another discipline. Osteopathic medicine is only taught in the United States by medical schools and can be practiced anywhere as physicians and surgeons.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Proposing:

1. There should only be one Wiki page on _Osteopathy_ and only one page on _Osteopathic Medicine_ without the inclusion of country titles (e.g. in the United States or Canada).

2. Take the _in the United States_ part off of _Osteopathic medicine in the United States_ page.

3. The _Osteopathy_ page should have a hat note saying _Osteopathy is not equivalent to Osteopathic Medicine_ with a hyperlink to the _Osteopathic Medicine_ page.

4. Abolish Osteopathic medicine in Canada page.

---

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

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

Users involved

• Othon I (talk · contribs)
• Ahmet Q. (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Βατο (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have edited the caption of an image in the article, making it more inclusive, which it currently concentrates only on a specific part and I have been reverted as off-topic. The image is about Napoli di Romania which, it shows the Castle of the Greeks inside the walls and the Houses of the Albanians outside the walls. Certain editors believe that an inclusive statement about both locations (since the topic is Arvanites) as an example of coexistence between Greeks and Albanians in the 16th-century Peloponnese is off-topic. I wonder why because the very same article deals with the coexistence especially the Demographics. Additionally, certain editors were not civil and tried to dictate to me what to do ignoring the WP:MOS and WP:CAPTION guidelines. This is the image [17] as you can see on the right side within the walls you can find the Castel di greci and on the left side outside the walls the case di albanesi.

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

[[18]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate if the you could let us know if this The Venetian walled city of Napoli di Romania where the Case di Albanesi (lit. Houses of the Albanians) can be seen outside the walls and the castles of their neighbouring communities 'Castel di Greci (lit. Castle of the Greeks) and Castello di Franchi (lit. Castle of the Francs) can be seen within. Early 16th century inclusive caption should be added or is off-topic.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is a required precondition to discussion at this noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Othon I (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2021 (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

• Chelsea Rustad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pikachelsea (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The user SneaselxLv94 placed a delete request on the page, citing false claims that the article contains a non-objective POV, when in fact the article in question contains no opinions and only cited facts. I have seen plenty of articles about individual people in existence on Wikipedia with less articles indicating that person's notoriety, so the foundation for SneaselxLv94's claim is false.

The user also falsely claims that the article should be flagged for deletion due to their sexist suggestions that the person the article about just wants to be a "celebrity" and thinks Wikipedia is "social media", when in fact there is currently a public interest in the article content due to yesterday's debut of a 48 Hours documentary featuring the person who the article is about.

The user is repeatedly vandalizing the page with deletion requests and the insulting false information described above, and is not engaging in good faith, nor are they acting in conformance with any Wikipedia precedents or policy.

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

I have updated the page per the original request to clarify the current public interest in the subject matter, and removed the defamatory vandalizing statements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chelsea_Rustad&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please clarify to the SneaselxLv94 user that vandalism and personal attacks against individuals they don't like is not permitted, and there is no Wikipedia policy precedent for deleting the article in question.

---

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

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

Users involved

• Piotr Jr. (talk · contribs)
• Samsonite Man (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content dispute over a variety of challenged changes by Samsonite Man; multiple talk page threads over the past three months or so; discussion always become intractable with no concession to compromise by the other editor; most recent thread at Talk:Alicia_(album)#Samsonite_Man_continued_..., others are directly above it.

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

• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Samsonite_Man_continued_...
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_September_16_edit_war_by_Samsonite_Man
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_August_28th_edits_by_Samsonite_Man
• Talk:Alicia_(album)#Re:_Marketing_addition
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive438#User:Samsonite_Man_reported_by_User:Piotr_Jr._(Result:_Warned_user)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Some measure of de-escalation, as was suggested at User_talk:ARoseWolf#c-Blaze_The_Wolf-2021-11-15T18:11:00.000Z-Piotr_Jr.-2021-11-15T18:04:00.000Z

• Comment, the link actually takes you to my response which was where I said Rose was on a break. Rose was the one who suggested you come here. Nothing too distressing, just thought I'd let you know. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note - Does User:Samsonite Man have a statement to make? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The editor's pattern of behavior suggests they are on here somewhat on-and-off, albeit focusing strictly on this article and other Alicia Keys-related articles, which may be part of the reason why none of the edit-war/dispute spurts ever reaches a resolution, only to resurface again in another manifestation some weeks or month later... just wanted to make a note of that in case he doesn't respond. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I am putting this dispute on hold, pending the return of User:Samsonite Man, who edits intermittently. In the meantime, my advice to the filing editor is to edit boldly, while explaining your edits on the article talk page so as to be ready to discuss with either that editor or any other editor. When the other editor returns, if this case has not been archived, moderated discussion will be possible. So, edit boldly, but not recklessly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, been doing that... thanks. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note - Allright @Robert McClenon:, it seems Samsonite Man had returned a few days ago with this edit to another article, so I'd presume they're aware ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2021 (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

• Oranges and Lemons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sweetpool50 (talk · contribs)
• Asher Rosenberg (talk · contribs)
• Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A procedural dispute has arisen whether it is appropriate to mention use of the Oranges and Lemons rhyme in Orwell's novel 1984 in an In popular culture section of the article devoted to the rhyme, or alternatively whether it is better to discuss the mention and its significance in the article on the novel. Secondary to this is what source would be most appropriate to establish that mention of the rhyme is noteworthy?

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

There has been discussion at [19] over the course of the last week. The three editors involved have agreed together to seek resolution via DRN.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification of the procedures invoked, particularly of WP:IPCEXAMPLES, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:ROC

I edited the page and added an “In Popular Culture” section and was told to take it down because I used a blog as a source. I put it back up using a more objective source and was told to take it down again because it wasn’t relevant to the page. I called in a 3rd Opinion who sided with keeping the section up and we then started a DRN. A. Rosenberg (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I became involved originally from a 3O request. I looked over the discussion thoroughly and decided that A. Rosenberg's edit was justified and the "In popular culture" addition was a benefit to the article. From what I can tell online, there is a strong connection to the nursery rhyme and Orwell's novel, and it appears frequently in the book. After my input, the section was re-added, but then reverted again by the editor who disputed it. The editor who disputed the addition does not believe my input in the discussion to be sufficient for keeping the addition and wanted additional input, which I fully support. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - It appears that the other editors have not been notified on their talk pages, but are aware of this DRN from discussion on the article talk page. It also appears that there was already a Third Opinion, but one of the editors does not accept the result of the Third Opinion. So: What are the editors requesting from DRN? Will they accept the results of a Fourth Opinion, or are they interested in compromise, or do they want assistance in posting an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

For my part, yes. This appeal was made in order to clarify whether guidelines were being correctly followed from an editor with some experience. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes to what? To a fourth opinion? An RfC? A compromise? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

please clearly answer the question asked by the volunteer, do not begin discussion about the problem until a volunteer accepts this case.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Sweetpool50 - You stated in filing this case that there is a procedural dispute. You have not stated what the procedural dispute is. You haven't raised a question about whether procedures are being followed correctly. You have stated that you don't like the mention of 1984, and it appears that you don't like the Third Opinion. The Third Opinion was provided correctly. It is true that when there is a Third Opinion, neither of the two editors is bound by it, unless they both agreed in advance that it was binding. However, you haven't even stated whether you simply disagree with the Third Opinion (which is your right), and, if so, what you want, or whether you think that there was something wrong with the Third Opinion (there wasn't). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, it's my understanding that differences over how to interpret and implement guidelines is procedural. By all means correct me if I'm wrong. To add another instance, the possibility of a third opinion was not discussed with me beforehand. Other experiences of that approach have not impressed me. In this case, the one-sided appeal drew in an editor who had apparently only joined WP in July of this year and is perhaps short of necessary experience. There were several things I did not like about the edit I originally reversed, which started the talk page discussion. To begin with, the nursery rhyme is already a part of popular culture, so to start an "In popular culture" section is a tautology. The first edit said simply "The nursery rhyme comes up several times in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell" and was unsourced, so it looked like an invitation to start up the kind of one-liner list that is deprecated here on WP. The sources subsequently provided said no more than that the rhyme was cited in "1984", which is merely anecdotal and unhelpful. I was trying to encourage User:Asher Rosenberg to do some real editing and add something to the "1984" article about the use of the nursery rhyme as an element in the novel. Perhaps if he had followed through on the discussion we might have reached a compromise position where a mention of the rhyme's appearance in the novel (under a more sensible subtitle) would have been legitimate. The reader's knowledge of the rhyme would then have been enriched by being taken to the discussion of it in the article on the novel, where such information should most properly appear. In 'real' life, I have had long experience as an editor - for two years even as editor of an encyclopaedia. It seems to me that the discussion here is really about the encyclopaedic function of WP and how the guidelines can best be followed to help it fulfil that function. And that was the reason I requested this process. I find it disappointing that Asher Rosenberg, whom I have reminded that we are awaiting his input, has yet to join in. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC) @Sweetpool50: I've been on Wikipedia, at least semi-actively, for four-and-a-half years. Not sure where you got July from. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Looking at other In Popular Culture sections on pages, there doesn’t seem to be much of a demand for “enriching content.” If Sweetpool50 would like, I could provide more context to how exactly it comes up in the novel, how the protagonist interacts with it, etc. but I was unaware that this dispute was over the content of the section rather than whether or not the section is warranted in the first place. Take this “In Film” section for Ezra Brooks. In the film Léon: The Professional, Gary Oldman's Character, Stansfield, picks up a bottle of Ezra Brooks whiskey in Mathilda's apartment This does little other than note that the reference exists. I know that “another page did it” isn’t a sound argument, but I’m just trying to provide an example. If he has examples of In Popular Culture sections that he believes provided more sufficient content who’s example he would have me follow, I’d love to see it. A. Rosenberg (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note 2 All of that wall of text has not answered the question- What are the editors requesting from DRN? Will they accept the results of a Fourth Opinion, or are they interested in compromise, or do they want assistance in posting an RFC? Neither Robert nor myself are asking your reasons for wanting something- we are asking what it is you are asking for. Please answer this before we can move forward. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  I would accept either, but I assume @Sweetpool50 has a preference. A. Rosenberg (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's a choice of three things. I'd say begin with a 4th opinion to throw some light on the question, preferably leading towards a compromise (one of which I've suggested already in my "wall of text"). If an RfC would bring in fresh pairs of eyes/points of view, that's an option I wouldn't refuse as a further step. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note 1.2:
  • • Differences of opinion as to how to interpret and implement guidelines are content issues, unless they involve conduct. It appears that the disagreement with the Third Opinion is a content issue.
    • Experience is not required to provide a Third Opinion. My Fourth Opinion is that a Third Opinion has been offered, and that asking for a Fourth Opinion is forum shopping.
    • The discussion that started above would be appropriate at the article talk page. Can it be continued there? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note 1.3: Just for good measure- As a 5th opinion- I 100% agree with the other volunteer. And- as someone who has edited for over 10 years, I also agree with the 3rd Opinion- mentioning that the rhyme featured heavily in a book by one of the most important authors of the 20th century is entirely relevant and appropriate for a pop culture section. And the discussion began should move back to the talk page, as there is really nothing more to do here- if the 3rd, 4th and 5th opinion offered are not suitable, you can do an RFC- but it does appear to be forum shopping at this point.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2021 (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

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

Users involved

• JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs)
• AntanO (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, I added another meaning of the word 'Eelam' to the Eelam Wikipedia Article. I used the same existing sources used in the Wikipedia article to add the other meaning. The same sources used in the Wikipedia article says that Eelam also means Sinhala. The other user Anton says the sources are not reliable. But the same sources that he says are not reliable have been used in the Eelam Wikipedia article to talk about other meanings of the word 'Eelam'. So I asked him to remove all the information taken from the respective sources if they are not reliable. He doesn't seem to be interested in that as well. One of the sources used in that article is the Tamil Lexicon which user Anton says is not reliable. It is his personal opinion and not the opinion of the majority. Tamil Lexicon is a twelve-volume dictionary of the Tamil language published by the University of Madras and it is said to be the most comprehensive dictionary of the Tamil language to date. I can't understand why he says Tamil Lexicon cannot be trusted. At the same time, the same Tamil Lexicon has been used as a source to talk about other meanings of the word Eelam in the Wikipedia article. So it makes no sense. I provided him with more other sources that refer Eelam to Sinhala but he seems to neglect them.

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

[20]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I humbly request you all to look at this dispute from a neutral point of view and help us reach a consensus. Please go through the entire discussion in the talk page and provide your valuable comments. Thank you very much.

Eelam is the native Tamil name for the island, now known as Sri Lanka. Other names spurge, toddy and gold are not clear and need more verification. There is no other dictionaries point spurge, toddy and gold to Eelam or vice versa. Newly the terms Sinhala added from the same source and it says Eelam Ceylon, Lunka, the Cingalese country. Ceylon is former name of Sri Lanka. Still Lunka and Cingalese country are not clear. If Eelam = Sinhala, will anyone add Sinhala = Eelam? In the article, Eelam, under the "Etymology" there are 2 versions; one says Eelam came from Sinhala and other says Sinhala came from Eelam. Both are academic views, and it could be political motivation. Therefore, we cannot come to conclusion due to two disruptive versions. These disruptive views cannot accepted as main term. Is there any other dictionaries say same meaning?

• Volunteer Note - It appears that Eelam is serving as both a primary article and a disambiguation page. Should it be split into a primary article and a disambiguation page? Would that either solve the problem or partially solve it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I have moved the other meanings into a disambiguation page, Eelam (disambiguation). If there are issues with the disambiguation page, they can be discussed at Talk: Eelam (disambiguation), or by nominating it for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (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

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

Users involved

• Interfase (talk · contribs)
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
• Archives908 (talk · contribs)
• Maidyouneed (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The statement of a Russian ethnographer Natalia Volkova about the Azerbaijani origin of the dance was removed from the article. The user who removed this information claims that this source is WP:SPS published source and the statement is exceptional claim. I am not agree with that point. First, this is not WP:SPS source, because it was not published by Volkova. It is a collection of multiple articles on the ethnographic journal published by Encyclopedia publisher with its own editor. Natalia Volkova is a famous Russian ethnographer specialized on the ethnography of the Caucasus. This is not exceptional claim because this is not surprising or apparently important claim and doesn't contradicts by the prevailing view. On the other hand we have multiple reliable sources focused on the topic of Uzundara (Big Soviet Encyclopedia, Musical Encyclopedia, article about this dance in Tkachenko's book, Big Encyclopaedical Dictionary) that determines the dance only as an Azerbaijani dance that makes the statement of Volkova more logical.

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

Talk:Uzundara#Azerbaijani_origin_of_the_dance_noted_by_Volkova

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Act as a mediator, review the sources provided and try to resolve the dispute.

We have sources for characterizing the dance as both Armenian and Azerbaijani, see lead of the article. My understanding is Interfase wanted to separate the origin of the dance, as he argues that origin can only be of one country, and he claims the origin of the dance is Azerbaijani. But that doesn't mean that sources can't have different view points regarding the origin of a dance. For example, he broke WP:3RR and removed this source which says that the dance was brought to the Caucasus region by Armenians from Ottoman Empire. It is published by Viltis (magazine).

So far, the only source we have which claims the dance as of "Azerbaijani origin" (not "Azerbaijani dance", as Interfase himself noted many times in our discussion those are different things, and "origin" can be one, while "dance" is noted to be both Armenian and Azeri) is this source, as Interfase also linked above. The source is published by Global Vision Publishing House, it is not an academic publication, it is not a reliable publication hence I noted it is WP:SPS.

Regarding other sources (2 actually) that Intefase tried to present as claiming "Azerbaijani origin", none quoted saying those words. The sources he presented in talk actually state "Nagorno-Karabakh origin". I already explained to Interfase multiple times that none of the sources specify any point of time or year that the dance originated not even an estimate, and Nagorno-Karabakh changed hands multiple times throughout history. Using those 2 sources that say "Nagorno-Karabakh origin" as sources for "Azerbaijani origin" is plain and simple WP:TEND editing. And btw, it is already said in the Uzundara#Etymology_and_origin that the dance is of Nagorno-Karabakh origin, which is exactly what the sources he presented in talk say.

My opinion is that the article is fine as it is, and neutrally reflects what reliable sources state. I'm still not sure what Interfase tries to achieve with this, as there isn't a single RS sources explicitly saying the dance is of "Azerbaijani origin". In fact as I noted above, origin is said to be of Nagorno-Karabakh with no year/estimate specified for said origin, hence we can't determine whether the dance is Armenian/Azeri/Persian/etc or any other nation origin that ruled over Karabakh at some point in history. Another version suggests the dance was brought from Ottoman Empire Armenians in 1828. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with user ZaniGiovanni. Over the course of our very lengthy talk page discussion, several editors have tried to explain to Interfase why explicitly classifying this dance as "Azeri in origin" is WP:TEND editing. For starters, there is already an established consensus regarding the lead which was agreed upon back in September 2020. Recently, Interfase has been hellbent on strictly classifying this dance, as a dance of "Azeri origin". However, the user has time and time again failed to provide a single credible source which outright states that this historic Caucasian dance is undeniably Azeri- with no other possibility of it originating elsewhere. The user has also flip flopped their own arguments, first stating that the dance may have possibly originated among Armenian's, then proceeding to deny any connection of the dance to the Armenian people/culture. Several users have provided 3rd party WP:RS highlighting the role of the dance in ancient Armenian culture/tradition and its likely origin. However, Interfase has ignored the validity of these sources completely. I raised concern in the talk page that the user is discrediting all other credible sources while favoring their single source (which itself states the dance originated in Nagorno-Karabakh, not Azerbaijan). I pleaded with the user to take time and read all the sources- perhaps to no avail. Which brings me to my final point, Nagorno-Karabakh is neither Armenian or Azeri. The territory has "transferred hands"/been invaded and ruled over by many peoples over hundreds of years and still today remains divided. Most of the academic sources agree that this dance originated somewhere in Nagorno-Karabakh and the article very clearly makes note of that. However, Interfase (almost obsessively) seeks to alter the place of origin to Azerbaijan. The current lead accurately states the importance of the dance to the entire region and the peoples of the Caucasus (Armenians, Azeris, and Georgians). Its neutral, fair, and balanced. I believe, Interfase has been displaying favoritism towards their unreliable source, while disregarding all other credible 3rd party sources. Altering the lead/article to suite a specific WP:POV, while favoring a single source to attain WP:UNDUE is unacceptable. I believe the status quo of the article should be maintained in its current form. I trust the fair judgment of the Admins in this matter. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. There are four editors listed including the filing editor. One of the other editors is clearly aware of this filing because they are engaged in back-and-forth, but the other two should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2021 (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

• LGBT history in North Dakota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BranderChatfield (talk · contribs)
• Moneytrees (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

"Hello BranderChatfield! Your additions to LGBT history in North Dakota have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license."

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

[21]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Get the deleted text back so I can edit it correctly.

---

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

• Dolley Madison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ghgfrujbftjtf (talk · contribs)
• ferret (talk · contribs)
• Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I proposed rewording the language involving the enslaved people in this article (I suggest centering the terminology on "enslaved" instead of "slave" as well as identifying the places of their enslavement as forced-labor camps.) An initial editor reverted the changes I made, explained why for the revert, so I revised my edit based on their feedback and they agreed that the revised changes were much better and more appropriate. Then a different editor reverted those changes, and advised that to make changes to that page - I needed to instead post those requests on the talk page, which I have done.

The reason for my dispute resolution request at this point is because we seem unable to reach an agreement.

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

[22] [23] [24] [25]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help determine what language should be used. Referring to enslaved people as "slaves" commodifies and dehumanizes those individuals. It should be noted that the places they were held were categorized and supported by forced-labor, yet if there is resistance to identifying those locals as such - the least compromise should be at least to humanize those people who were there by identifying them as "enslaved" rather than "slaves.

Absolutely premature. A discussion was opened just today with only a few replies thus far, including from an editor not notified of this discussion, Eddie891. Additionally, the third reverter, Pachu Kannan has not been notified. -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that this is premature at this time. If after a few days no consensus can be reached, I would then be open to this moving forward. I'm only partially related - I reverted the first edit by Ghgfrujbftjtf, which in my opinion did not respect NPOV. The user redid their edits in a way I felt was an improvement, so I did not revert further, and I've not made any edits to the page since. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely premature to come here to DRN already. Horrible call. Just hash it out on the article talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 29 November 2021 (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

• Light-on-dark color scheme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rudyon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been an NPOV dispute on this page for a year.

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

Talk:Light-on-dark_color_scheme#NPOV_Dispute

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I asked on the talk page about this at the end of October. No one has responded. I failed to find information on what do in this sort of situation. I hope at least that you will guide me in some direction.

---

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

• Swastika (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nazi symbolism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Binksternet (talk · contribs)
• WikiLinuz (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is regarding placing the German name of swastika "Hakenkreuz" on the article. The content concerning this edit was sourced through multiple peer-reviewed sources, however, an editor keeps reverting the edit. The issue has already been raised on the talk page of the article, and I have discussed it in length in support of the edit. But, they're not addressing the raised points.

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

• Talk:Swastika#Simon_D._Messing's_letter_to_the_editor

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The editor doesn't seem to address the points made on the talk page. I would like these two edits be restored.

WikiLinuz wishes to exchange the English word swastika for the German word hakenkreuz, to put the revered ancient swastika at one remove from Nazism which poisoned it so badly.

The first attempt by WikiLinuz was this one which misused a letter-to-the editor from Simon D. Messing in the 1976 volume of Current Anthropology. Messing's letter does not stand so tall in the literature that we can use it to completely redefine the topic.

The second attempt by WikiLinuz was a doubling down of the first bet, bringing more sources, but they are cherry-picked to emphasize WikiLinuz's purpose of completely redefining the topic: asserting that the swastika was really a hakenkreuz.

Essentially, WikiLinuz is swallowing Hitler's propaganda. Hitler took the ancient pre-Christian swastika which had been used by German Aryanists to symbolize notional "Aryan" racial purity during the 1890s and 1900s, and repurposed the symbol to serve Nazism. Hitler asserted the symbol had a Christian foundation (a false claim); he imbued the swastika with pro-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-Marxist characteristics. This act has been described by nearly every scholar of Nazism... sources are not lacking. Certainly Malcolm Quinn devotes a great deal of attention to Hitler's swastika in his book The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol.

WikiLinuz would be advised to read a broad swath of the literature before attempting to redefine this controversial topic. Binksternet (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2021 (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

• Saint Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fureto (talk · contribs)
• Rafaelosornio (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The top of the Infobox describes Peter as Pope, Saint, Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of Antioch without qualifying them appropriately as "according to Roman Catholicism/Church tradition", etc. I removed them, as they are described with appropriate context elsewhere in the article. Rafaelosornio reverted the change without explanation. I began a Talk section about the change and attempted to resolve by consensus, but Rafaelosornio has reverted again without further updating the Talk section, and it doesn't appear to me that further unsupervised discussion will be productive. The history of this edit now feels very close to an edit war.

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

Talk:Saint_Peter#Edit_and_reversion_in_Infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe a third perspective will help advance the discussion towards agreement.

---

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

• Hellenism (modern religion) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• KLEOPATROS7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I would like the page locked until consensus can be made in the "talk" page over whether or not "Hellenism (modern religion)" is a singular religion that can be discussed at all. There are arguments over who gets to define Hellenism as a religion, Greeks or non-Greeks.

Some are arguing that 'Hellenism" is a religion. Under the talk section someone wrote "it does not speak for the plurality of the adherents of the religion around the world,"

This implies one religion and everyone is an equal adherent. This has not to be proven, there is no evidence of this.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hellenism_(modern_religion)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please lock the page from further edits which may be biased in one way or the other.

---

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

• Draft:Chris Barrett (interior designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IntDesign (talk · contribs)
• Loksmythe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article about an interior designer was declined for allegedly having "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

However, this article includes 33 references, including independent, reliable, verifiable published sources (many national publications): Elle Decor, Architectural Digest, California Home + Design, Los Angeles Times, Better Homes & Gardens, InStyle, House Beautiful , American Automobile Association, Luxe Interiors + Design, The Spruce, Dunn-Edwards Paints, The Franklin Report, MILIEU, and Westside Today.

The subject of the article (an interior designer) has more verifiable and notable references than numerous interior designers currently listed in Wikipedia.

Please note the type of coverage in interior design magazines is different from other types of news coverage. Most coverage in interior design magazines is about projects AND the contributors to those projects. That does not diminish the notability of the subject in the interior design field. That is simply the nature of these types of publications and has been for decades.

A Wikipedia entry should not be penalized simply because of the nature of the news coverage for a particular profession. For example, coverage of a doctor's work in medical journals would not resemble coverage an actor's performance in PEOPLE magazine.

Additionally, the subject's own homes were featured in House Beautiful and MILIEU. This type of coverage is lacked by numerous interior designers listed in Wikipedia.

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

[26]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Loksmythe has not responded to the discussion on the talk page [27]

---

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.