Open main menu

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

  • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
  • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Open/close quick reference
  • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
  • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect In Progress Bhaskarbhagawati (t) 46 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 3 hours Chaipau (t) 1 days, 16 hours
Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Language In Progress John Francis Templeson (t) 18 days, 15 hours MrClog (t) 2 days, 15 hours ReconditeRodent (t) 2 days, 9 hours
Talk:Håkon Wium Lie New Elmats (t) 5 days, 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 18 hours
Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections New JFG (t) 3 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 hours BullRangifer (t) 58 minutes
Talk:2019 Indian_general_election Closed Muthalganesan (t) 2 days, 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 11 hours
Draft talk:National drinks New 76.167.176.54 (t) 2 days, 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 15 hours BrieDeChevre (t) 5 hours
User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articles Closed Michaelgmitchell45 (t) 1 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 2 hours
Talk:Erdős number#Scientiometrics Closed Wikiman2718 (t) 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 04:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputesEdit

Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialectEdit

  – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Bhaskarbhagawati on 11:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue extensively with them at:

How do you think we can help?

The issue started back in 2012, when original old article Kamrupi was divided into Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors including Aeusoes, "citing lack of sources". Their chief argument was modern languages/dialects cannot have history. Since then i have added numerous sources but they dismisses and persistently deletes them, even though wp:rsn said they are reliable to use on the subject. I need wp:drn advice on the dispute.

Summary of dispute by ChaipauEdit

The dispute is not about whether Kamrupi dialect is a "modern speech which lacks history", but whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are synonymous and equivalent.

That they are different was first pointed out by Kwamikagami around June/July 2012 and he tried to split the article in two 501823544. There was a brief tussle between Bhaskarbhagawati and Kwamikagami over moves, with Bhaskarbhagawati trying to move it to Kamrupi Language, which was eventually deleted. I agreed with Kwamikagami, and backed it up with two references (Sharma 1978 and Goswami 1970). Both these works are seminal and comprehensive enough and they name the two articles as they stand today. Bhaskarbhagawati at first tried to move the article, and then attempted a merge that failed. And since then his attempt has been to either insert "Kamrupi language" through citations in the lede or templates above it; or dig up references whose wordings seemingly implied that the modern dialect and the pre-1250 language are the same. Bhaskarbhagawati continues his attempt to merge the two, as he admitted here 890529414.

The phrasing "modern speech which lacks history" is very recent, just a few days old. Even if this was the issue, then all the modern dialects in the dialectal continuum included in the Kamatapuri lects and the Assamese language too deserve their share of history.

Chaipau (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aeusoes1Edit

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

I was brought to the issue in 2012 by a request for a third opinion regarding whether Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit are referentially equivalent. I teased out the mutual claims that Bhaskarbhagawati and Chaipau made, and realized that the former editor had relied on cherry picked, misunderstood, or unauthoritative quotes to claim that the two were the same. Reliable sourcing instead indicates that the 12th century Prakrit was likely a precursor language to what amounts to a modern-day dialect continuum. As is typical for dialect continua, a few language divisions have been made that are linguistically arbitrary, but still recognized as valid for sociohistorical reasons. In the same way that we don't consider Latin and Italian to be the same language, we wouldn't consider the Kamrupi dialect and Kamarupi Prakrit to be the same, even though they are clearly related, because of the political, cultural, and linguistic changes that have happened since the 12th century.

I explained this to Bhaskarbhagawati, but he disagrees with this assessment. He has so far not provided any convincing evidence that we should change the presentation in the article to reflect his belief that the two are referentially equivalent. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit, Talk:Kamrupi dialect discussionEdit

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

To support the statement that Kamrupi language do have history, i have provided references with full quotes from eminent local linguist, which are at [1] and [2].भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources by me (Bhaskarbhagawati)Edit

Keep discussion concise until moderated discussion begins. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Upendranath Goswami (1970), A Study on Kamrupi: A dialect of Assamese, Department of Historical Antiquarian Studies, Assam, p.4 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.
  • Sukumar Sen, Ramesh Chandra Nigam (1975), Grammatical sketches of Indian languages with comparative vocabulary and texts, Volume 1, p.33 Assam from ancient times, was known as Kamarupa till the end of the Koch rule (17th century) and ancient Kamarupa comprised the whole of North Bengal including Cooch-Behar, and the Rangpur and Jalpaiguri districts of Bengal. Its permanent western boundary is said to have been the river Karatoya in North Bengal according to the Kalika Purana and Yoginitantra, both devoted to geographical accounts of ancient Kamarupa. So the Aryan language spoken first in Assam was the Kamrupi language spoken in Rangpur, Cooch-Behar, Goalpara, Kamrup district and some parts of Nowgong and Darrang districts. As also put by K.L. Barua "the Kamrupi dialect was originally a variety of eastern Maithili and it was no doubt the spoken Aryan language throughout the kingdom which then included the whole of the Assam Valley and the whole of Northern Bengal with the addition of the Purnea district of Bihar”. It is in this Kamrupi language that the early Assamese literature was mainly written. Up to the seventeenth century as the centre of art, literature and culture were confined within western Assam and the poets and the writers hailed from this part, the language of this part also acquired prestige. The earliest Assamese writer is Hema Saraswati, the author of a small poem, Prahrada Caritra, who composed his verses under his patron, King Durlabhnarayana of Kamatapur who is said to have ruled in the latter part of the 13th century. Rudra Kandali translated Drone Parva under the patronage of King Tamradhvaja of Rangpur. The most considerable poet of the pre-vaisnavite period is Madhava Kandali, who belonged to the present district of Nowgong and rendered the entire Ramayana into Assamese verse under the patronage of king Mahamanikya, a Kachari King of Jayantapura. The golden age in Assamese literature opened with the reign of Naranarayana, the Koch King. He gathered round him at his court at Cooch-Behar a galaxy of learned man. Sankaradeva real founder of Assamese literature and his favourite disciple Madhavadeva worked under his patronage. The other-best known poets and writers of this vaisnavite period namely Rama Sarasvati, Ananta Kandali, Sridhar Kandali, Sarvabhauma Bhattacharyya, Dvija Kalapachandra and Bhattadeva, the founder of the Assamese prose, all hailed from the present district of Kamarupa. During Naranaryana's reign "the Koch power reached its zenith. His kingdom included practically the whole of Kamarupa of the kings of Brahmapala's dynasty with the exception of the eastern portion known as Saumara which formed the Ahom kingdom. Towards the west the kingdom appears to have extended beyond the Karatoya, for according to Abul Fasal, the author of the Akbarnamah, the western boundary of the Koch kingdom was Tirhut. On the south-west the kingdom included the Rangpur district and part of Mymensingh to the east of the river Brahmaputra which then flowed through that district," The Kamrupi language lost its prestige due to reasons mentioned below and has now become a dialect which has been termed as Kamrupi dialect as spoken in the present district of Kamrup.
  • Kaliram Medhi (1936). Assamese Grammar and Origin of the Assamese Language. Sri Gouranga Press. p. 66. The language of the pre-Vaisnava and Vaisnava was the dialect of Western Assam while the language of the modern literature is that of Eastern Assam. This latter has been accepted by the common consent as the literary language of the country. Political power thus determined the centre of literary activity and also of the form of literary language.
  • Golockchandra Goswami (1982). Structure of Assamese. Department of Publication, Gauhati University. p. 11. The Eastern and Central dialects may be regarded as uniform to a certain extent in their respective areas, while Western Asamiya is heterogeneous in character, with large regional variations in the east, west, north and south. There must have been in early times as well, diverse dialects and dialect groups as at present. But then, there seems to be only one dominant literary language prevailing over the whole area; and that was Western Asamiya, the sole medium of all ancient Asamiya literature including the Buranjis written in the Ahom courts. This was because the centre of all literary activities in early times was in western Assam; and the writers were patronized by the kings and local potentates of that region. In the later period, however, even though the centre of literary activities moved to eastern Assam in the Ahom period, the writers continued to accept and use the existing model of the literary style of that time.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion, but not in the last three days. The editors should resume discussion on an article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, it can be resumed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, Robert. There hasn't been discussion in the last three days because we've been discussing at ANI, where I had brought up the dispute because Chaipau and I believe that the real problem is disruptive practices on Bhaskarbhagawati's part. We have been tasked with using DRN as a gesture of good faith. Bhaskarbhagawati specifically has been explicitly instructed not to discuss the matter in the talk pages[3][4] until we go through the DRN process. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I agree with user:aeusoes1, for the exacting requirements set on us at ANI. Also, over the years, since 2012, we have been stuck with the central question because of the different incarnations it takes (the latest is the "lack of history" phrasing). DRN should probably avoid falling into this trap of never ending cycles of discussions. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon and others, consider opening this thread, there are editing restrictions on article and talk, until issue is resolved here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderatorEdit

I am about to create a talk page for this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion will be at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Kamrupi discussion. The usual rules apply. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other; address your discussion to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Kamrupi discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statement by ModeratorEdit

I had thought that maybe we could make some progress toward resolving this dispute, but it appears that the issue is being raised again of whether to combine the two articles. Some of us thought that there was agreement that we would have two articles, one on the older language and one on the modern language or dialect. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - I will give you one last choice. Do you want to discuss how to improve the two articles, or do you want to have a merge discussion to combine the two articles? If you choose to work to improve the two articles, you will not be allowed to complain about the decision seven years ago to split them, and if you do complain, I will go to Arbitration Enforcement and request that you be topic-banned from Indian languages for one year. If you choose to have a merge discussion, we will have a merge discussion, and if it keeps the two articles, you will be subject to being topic-banned from them. Now - Choose. User:Bhaskarbhagawati - You have 24 hours to decide which course we will take. If you do not decide within 24 hours, I will decide for you, and I will not permit you to go back. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Both of you have been notified again of ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I have been patient, maybe too patient. I don't plan to be patient any longer, either with vague complaints about censorship, vague complaints that all viewpoints should be represented (which we already agree one), other vague complaints, or side complaining about the history of the articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaipau - Within 48 hours, please identify one change to each article that has the highest priority. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sixteenth Statements by EditorsEdit

I would like to suggest the top items from Round Thirteen.

  • Kamrupi dialect: "In medieval times, Kamrupi was used in the Brahmaputra Valley and its adjoining areas for literary purposes in parallel with Sanskrit, both for prose and poetry." → "In late medieval times Kamrupi forms are found in prose, such as those compiled in the Kamrupar Buranji."
  • Kamarupi Prakrit: In the second paragraph, remove "This sort of Sporadic Apabhramsa is a mixture of Sanskrit, Prakrit and colloquial dialects of Assam.[7]".

Chaipau (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC) .

Talk:Håkon Wium LieEdit

  – New discussion.
Filed by Elmats on 00:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Should the article contain information that the magazine this person cofounded is controversial and right-wing? The discussion contains arguments to and from, i will try to refrain from reciting them here in interest of being objective.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk about it on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

I think giving guidance on whether this information should not be included on the page.

Summary of dispute by permeneeEdit

The dispute is whether the term "controversial Norwegian right-wing" should be used on a BLP page, wrt. ownership in the Resett online newspaper. I believe the term is not fitting, for these reasons:

  1. information about a newspaper's bias should appear on the wikipedia page of the newspaper itself, rather than on bio pages of founders/owners. For example, one does not link to the "liberal Washington Post" on Jeff Bezos' page.
  2. the Resett online newspaper has a well-developed wikipedia page in Norwegian which does not use words like "controversial" or "right-wing"
  3. the term is possibly libelious unless one has very clear evidence about support for controversial right-wing causes. No such evidence has been provided.
  4. on the contrary, the two initial editors of Resett were an Utøya massacre survivor (Bjørn Ihler) and a researcher who was most famous for warning against bombing Libya (Helge Lurås). Supporting these is probably more left-wing than right-wing.
  5. the current editorial board of Resett is more diverse (in terms of skin color and sexual identity) than any other Norwegian newspaper, and articles by left-wing authors appear regularly (e.g. Lars Birkelund). Labelling the newspaper as "right-wing" is therefore simplistic at best, dangerous at worst. In any case, such labelling should not appear a bio page.
  6. According to Wikipedia's policies "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives".

The proposed use of the term seems to be just that: a tittilating claim, which should not appear on a BLP.

Summary of dispute by jon_harald_sobyEdit

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

Talk:Talk:Håkon Wium Lie discussionEdit

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States electionsEdit

  – New discussion.
Filed by JFG on 21:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Over the lifetime of the article, there have been recurring disagreements about which items deserve to be included in the timeline, and which ones are off-topic. Some editors, including me, argue for a strict scope encompassing any activities by Russian entities to interfere in U.S. elections. Some others argue for a broad interpretation of "anything linked to this affair", which may encompass essentially any news item that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia", including stuff from 30 years ago.

Recently, the discussions have flared up again, and I have attempted to structure the discussion by theme. Several talk page threads are open, and there is active participation from various people, however most discussions are repeating prior arguments and people are entrenched in their positions. Despite the fact that we are now much better informed as to the real-world scope of Russian actions, and Trump associates' involvement or lack thereof, the article has fallen victim to statu quo stonewalling, which is in my opinion not the best way to inform readers.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After some recent edit-warring between the two "sides" involving mass removals and restorations of content (because one side deems it irrelevant / off-topic and the other deems it important to keep), I have carefully segmented the discussion by subject matter, and summarised all timeline entries that are under dispute. See the various threads under Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Disputed pre-2015 content, by theme.

How do you think we can help?

  • Help editors agree on the appropriate scope of the timeline.
  • Collectively establish criteria for inclusion of any current or future entry.
  • Advise on other places where out-of-scope information for this article could be better suited.

I feel that a mediation process is more likely to break the deadlock and converge on a viable path for article improvement, than a series of RfCs which would probably reinforce the entrenched positions of participating editors.

Additional statements by JFGEdit

It would be pointless to address X1\'s long catalogue of grievances, as this is not conducive to article improvement and resolution of the dispute. X1\ regrettably fails to AGF with other editors, but that's a conduct issue; instead, we are here to talk about content. The fact that some editors tend to delete stuff while others tend to include it boils down to a fundamental disagreement on article scope, as I described in my opening statement. Indeed this scoping issue has existed ever since the article was created. For example, two years ago in a May 2017 thread, I already proposed a set of objective inclusion criteria; today I hope that mediators can help editors come to a gentlemen's agreement on the appropriate article scope, with clear criteria to include or exclude any proposed timeline event. — JFG talk 21:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BullRangiferEdit

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • The scope of this article isn't just Russia, but anything which RS relate to the Trump-Russia investigation, Mueller probe, and any back history which RS relate to Russia's efforts to cultivate Trump for possible later use. This all includes Trump's presidential campaign and Trump's history with Russia, because he and the Russians were already talking about him running for president way back in the 1980s. They knew in 2013, before Americans knew, that he would run in 2016, and they were publicly promising to help him. (Americans didn't notice this until later.) RS say this goes very far back, and RS see that as the origins of the current interference in our elections, and they tie kompromat collected over decades about Trump's behavior as a tool in Russian's interference efforts. That's why this is all on-topic. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is "unreadable"? Of course. This isn't a prose article, but one of many chronological list articles, which, by their very nature, are not read in the same way as a prose article. These are bits of information from RS which are added by date, often with no obvious "readable" connection with the entries before and after. This complaint is a red herring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 123IP writes:
  1. "...if this is a list article" There is no "if" about it because it is indeed a chronological list. Period.
  2. "the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important". Of course not, because it's in chronological order. In a prose article one can organize by theme and importance, but not here. This is better used for research, not for easy, cozy, bedtime reading.
  3. "seemingly designed to..." The only "design" is to present what RS have said about events in the events' chronological order.
123IP seems to be seriously confused, and hold illogical expectations, about the article, its format, and its purpose. We have many chronological list articles of this nature.
What we really need is another article, using this information, to describe in prose all about the Trump-Russia investigation(s). This is a serious lack. The relatively new Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) prose article is making a brave, limited scope, start in this direction. 123IP is welcome to start writing the much needed article because we definitely need it. That would be the place to organize things with a design, with priorities, with a building thematic narrative, etc. That is not done in chronological list articles, only in prose articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I owe 123IP an apology. There was only one partial objection with a mild warning before they made the deletion. The warning was accurate as the rest of the objections and the restoration did come afterwards. I misread those times on the page and have stricken the incorrect parts above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • TFD seems to be ignorant of the background for the Russia investigation when they write "there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election." There is plenty of evidence. The evidence that is lacking is that Trump campaign members had any legitimate reasons to be holding so many secret meetings with Russians and then lying repeatedly about it.
We know they weren't talking about the weather because we know they were discussing election interference. How do we know? Because, starting in August 2015, no less than eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) overheard conversations between Russian assets describing their secretive contacts with Trump campaign members. I have collected more evidence and sources here (this spread around in our articles):
This foreign surveillance made some totally incidental and unintentional discoveries. The Trump campaign members were not under surveillance, but the Russian spies they were talking to were indeed under surveillance. This was the earliest recent evidence of active collusion between the campaign and Russians, and lots more was to come. (Strictly speaking, in 2013 (before Americans knew about his plans), when Trump and Russians were discussing him starting to run for president in 2015, and that the Russians promised to help him, that was earlier.)
TFD had also mentioned this subject on 123IP's talk page. I'll let others judge it, because it's worth reading. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • X1\, there was no fishing. The relevant part of TFD's comment in that diff is "we can remove all mention of Trump's contacts with Russians." If that is the real intent of all this, then we are dealing with a serious matter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FoxyGrampa75Edit

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

Summary of dispute by Jawz101Edit

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

Summary of dispute by Mr ErnieEdit

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

Summary of dispute by My very best wishesEdit

If something was described in RS as related to the subject of the page ("Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"), this should be included to the timeline. For example, [5], [6]. Including or excluding something should be decided by sources. WP:NOR please. What happens? Some participants plainly deny whatever RS on this subject tell. Consider this reply [7] to this comment [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Claims by some participants that the time line is difficult to read and navigate are completely bogus, in my opinion. This is a well organized, easy to read and highly informative page, much better than many other pages in Wikipedia. Do not destroy it please by mass deletions. I am telling this as someone involved in creation of educational resources on the internet in real life. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course no one argued for inclusion of "any news item that includes the words "Trump" and "Russia" as JFG (filer of this request) tells. This is a blatant misrepresentation by him. My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Robert McClenon. Given that JFG [9], and Onetwothreeip [10] resumed removing the content right after filing this DRN request, and they openly asked each other for support with reverts [11], I think this DRN request is going nowhere. Importantly, a lot of content removed by Onetwothreeip [12] was NOT discussed on article talk page, contrary to his edit summary. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by OnetwothreeipEdit

JFG, The Four Deuces and Slatersteven have it right. There is overwhelming status quo stonewalling particular by two editors who have been very disruptive. There are parts of the article that really should be uncontroversial to remove. I might write more here later. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In response to My very best wishes, I will just say that our role is to summarise information, not to include everything that has ever been reported that could be construed as even tenuously related to the subject. I also agree with Starship.paint that content can be moved to other articles, new and existing. The massive article as it is now is simply unreadable, I think someone observed that it would be over 100 A4 pages if printed out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

My response to BullRangifer is simply that if this is a list article, the reader cannot sort through the list from most important to least important, in any way that may be defined. Call it a list article if you want, it's an unreadable list then, seemingly designed to make the reader give up on thinking there is any substance to the implication made by the title of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In general, the few editors who include the excessive amounts generally act as though they are trying to prove that Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign was linked to Russian business interests and the Russian government. Even though there was undoubtedly such involvement, this is not something that has to be assertively proven. This is evident from all these minor details which are used to show the guilt and the motivations of certain people involved, as if this was some kind of criminal trial where it's relevant to analyse these people's thoughts. The facts should speak for themselves and we should remain completely neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What an absolute nonsense. There were no objections on the talk page to removing those columns when I had removed them. If you would actually bother to read that talk page section, the objections came after I had removed them. You wouldn't even have to compare the edit history of the article to know that, the talk page participants make that clear themselves. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PsantoraEdit

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

Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenEdit

I have disagreed that this needs to cover anything other then the interference and the events linked directly to it. Its not about Donnies contacts (or links) with Russia (that is covered by another article), its not about the investigations (that is covered by another article). All I think this does is muddy the water and makes it hard to follow the actual events. It also makes it far to big, and thus adds to the above difficulty.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Suggestion by Starship.paintEdit

Not summarizing because I’m not familiar. Would simply like to suggest splitting content into Timelime of links between Trump associates and Russian officials. Hopefully more people will be happy with that. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Four DeucesEdit

Agree with JFG's overview. Currently the article contains information that anyone who has worked for Trump who has had contact with Russians. That has all become moot since there is no evidence that any of these contacts related to the election. TFD (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Websurfer2Edit

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

Summary of dispute by X1\Edit

To the Readers of this DRN posting: Please forgive me if I make mistakes in this process as I have never participated in a DRN posting.[13]

There are multiple Users involved that the Filer left out upon filing.[14] and it is an example of my concern about what the Filer is doing, upon which I will detail further.

Some others involved are: AlsoWukai (also aka Wukai), Jasonanaggie (historical large contributor [15]), Cpaaoi, Arglebargle79 (article originator), Casprings, SPECIFICO, Objective3000, Theoallen1, MrX, Nerd271, Soibangla, etc... It is notable the Filer included drive-by editor Jawz101 (but not Phmoreno, who was in the same section, but has self-disclosed they have a conflict-of-interest of owning "Russian small cap stocks") and drive-by editor "FoxyGrampa75" (who was only a lead-in to "Onetwothreeip", who I will call 123IP), but not major historical contributors.

As BullRangifer has stated this is a red herring, which it is at best. This DRN posting appears to be an unhelpful timesuck SOAPBOX. On the surface, the behavior can call CIR into question. One can see some more of this from the section titles created at the article, such as "This article is very long", "Too much here", and "Finally getting on with fixing the article"; or this from User talk:Awilley. Notice the hyperbolic language and inherent illogic in the deletionists' discussion. I find the Filer JFG's Dispute overview description as clearly biased, and yet another example of the battleground mentality that has been exhibited. There are not two "sides". There are deletionists and those attempting to follow the spirit of BRD. This DRN posting itself appears to be abstractly similar to the GANG 123IP has attempted to create with not just JFG, but The Four Deuces (who I'll call 4x2) and Slatersteven (Slatersteven has overly avoided the ganging).[16] It is inappropriate for the Filer to characterize events in passive voice verbs regarding "discussions have flared up again" as the "flare-up" was by 123IP and JFG; both by mass deletions (examples can be given besides the ones below).

The scope is stable and long-standing. As some context here, there are by just one count many ongoing investigations into this topic,[1], and there are there are 12 that are unknown due to the still-redacted Mueller Report. This is not the time for the ignorant or premature deletions, as many things won't be clear for (as a guess) two years; so keep what the RSs tell us. While JFG has politely worded rhetoric here (and only recently at the Timeline Talk page, with the veneer of BRD), along with 123IPs' here (as My very best wishes pointed to), the deletionists' actions are very different at the article itself as is their lack of concern for editors that don't align with their agenda.

I call b.s on "I have attempted to structure the discussion" by the Filer, as what has happened is yet another mass deletion storm (some most recent examples: 27 April 2019, 28 April 2019, 29 April 2019 123IP, 29 April 2019 JFG, 30 April 2019, 2 May 2019, 3 May 2019 JFG, 3 May 2019 123IP; other past links can be given). Included in these is an example attempt to change the longstanding scope/lede without discussion (other examples can be given). JFG has previously deleted my explanatory notes from the Talk page (links can be given). The deletionists' behaviors are followed-up by IDHT; while mocking, downplaying, and trivializing RSs and spewing OR. Note: my characterizations are from observing the deletionists at my over 1 3/4 years contributing to the Timeline(s).

Why all this effort to aggressively delete? Why the rush to delete? JFG wanted information out of the Timeline, from which it went into the related Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum; then JFG promptly attempted to delete the entire page. For Giorgi Rtskhiladze, who is in the Mueller Report, JFG wanted to delete the article.

Make no mistake, this is an epic event whose roots go back decades. It has been called called a "political pearl harbor","an act of war" (Dick Cheney, example), the "most successful covert operation in history" (Michael Hayden (general)), and Michael Morell compares it with 9/11 (see Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 1#Timeline). Would one want to arbitrarily limit the Timeline of the event that brought the U.S. into World War II? Only someone with a biased agenda would. At Wikipedia we go where the RSs lead us. Learn about the insidious tactics of the Internet Research Agency and related actors; with their goal being corrosive to democratic society. These experienced editors, deletionists, should very well understand what a "bold edit" in BRD is by now, but persistently behave as if they don't.

Why would someone ostensibly engage in BRD if they have not read the RSs involved? Or worse why would someone change the meaning of content on the wp article without having read the RSs involved? There are many reasons, some are to gather information, to get attention, to disrupt, to muddy, to confuse, and to attrit. Tendentious and tedious. The Filer has admitted not reading the RSs, yet still engaged in BRD. The Filer has changed the Timelines content without knowing the RS. Links can be provided.

While honest editors are attempting to follow this DRN posting's process, JFG [17][18][19] and 123IP [20] have continued mass deletions; disingenuous to this DRN process.

Some of the notable items that were deleted (and since reverted) are the oft quoted Trump son's admitting (recorded) that a great deal of their money comes from Russia:

Trump Jr., then an executive vice president of The Trump Organization, says, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."[2][3][4]

Eric Trump tells author James Dodson, "We don't rely on American banks [...] We have all the funding we need out of Russia", and says, "We go there all the time". In May 2017, Eric Trump calls this "fabricated" and an example of why people distrust the media.[5][2][6][7][8]

If I didn't know better, one might think this disingenuousness against the DRN process, this denialism by the deletionists, is an attempt to get themselves banned or even blocked from the Wikipedia community entirely. And I don't know better. Maybe some of the deletionists are meatpuppets attracted by rageaholism? I don't know. It would be likely, for the good for the Wikipedia community, given just one more violation of the spirit of BRD, and disrespect for the DRN process, not to say the disrespect for non-deletionist wp editors; that JFG and 123IP be, at least topic banned; 4x2 be at least temporarily banned (other deletionists could be added), and possibly Phmoreno banned for COI editing. Just an idea (and not just mine) to improve the culture and decrease the attrition forces disingenuously working-on Wikipedia. To send a positive message to beleaguered editors volunteering for the betterment of Wikipedia. Long live Wikipedia.

Thank you to the Readers, and particularly the Volunteers, of this my first DRN posting for hopefully bearing with me. This has been a rushed job, but I have attempted to organize it (cleaning-up some of the errors; as this posting was created in two chucks chunks over today and the WIP saved here yesterday); but I have, out of brevity here and my time resources, left-out much evidence of the deletionists/denialists negative disruptive behavior at the Timeline(s) but I will provide links, if given the time. While I would still call my posting here in this section a "Work in Progress", my guess is, this Summary of dispute by X1\ is a start, and there is more to do. X1\ (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ Larry Buchanan and Karen Yourish (May 14, 2019). "Tracking 29 Investigations Related to Trump". nytimes.com. Retrieved May 18, 2019.CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
  2. ^ a b Pengelly, Martin (May 8, 2017). "Eric Trump said family golf courses attracted Russian funding, author claims". The Guardian.
  3. ^ Heyer, Hazel (September 15, 2008). "Executive Talk: Donald Trump Jr. bullish on Russia and few emerging markets". ETurboNews.
  4. ^ Thomas Frank (January 12, 2018). "Secret Money: How Trump Made Millions Selling Condos To Unknown Buyers". BuzzFeednNews.com. Retrieved 9 April 2019. And he told a New York conference in September 2008, "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
  5. ^ Harding, Luke (December 21, 2017). "Is Donald Trump's Dark Russian Secret Hiding in Deutsche Bank's Vaults?". Newsweek. Retrieved January 6, 2018.
  6. ^ Marusak, Joseph (May 14, 2017). "Author who said Eric Trump told him Russians financed golf courses defends statement". McClatchy DC. Retrieved December 12, 2017.
  7. ^ Marusak, Joe (May 15, 2017). "Eric Trump said Russians financed golf courses, author insists". CharlotteObserver.com. Retrieved December 12, 2017. That's when he said Eric Trump told him, "We have pretty much all the money we need from investors in Russia," Dodson said. ... "This story is completely fabricated and just another example of why there is such a deep distrust of the media in our country #FakeNews," Eric Trump said.
  8. ^ Littlefield, Bill (May 11, 2017). "A Day (And A Cheeseburger) With President Trump". WBUR-FM. Retrieved December 12, 2017. He said, 'Well, we don't rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.' I said, 'Really?' And he said, 'Oh, yeah. We've got some guys that really, really love golf, and they're really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time.' Now that was [a little more than] three years ago, so it was pretty interesting."

Summary of dispute by CaspringsEdit

This shouldn't be this hard. If a WP:RS connects a meeting/event to Russian interference, that should be in the timeline. The question is, would it be useful for a reader to understand Trump connections to Russia in the 1980s and do WP:RS connect that event, even if not directly. However, user:JFG and others have taken a bit of ownership of the article, instead of allot the article based on WP:RSes.Casprings (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections discussionEdit

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion in multiple sections of the article talk page. It has been inconclusive, which is not surprising when it has been scattered over multiple sections. The filing party has given proper notice. While it is a good idea to try to do something to resolve the inconclusive discussion, moderated discussion with thirteen parties and a moderator is like trying to herd four sheep, five cats, three rabbits, and a llama. One or more Requests for Comment are more likely to work. This request will be left open to see if a volunteer is willing to try either to conduct moderated discussion or to facilitate the RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I have read the statement by User:JFG. I am not as optimistic as they are that moderated discussion will help, but if a volunteer wants to try, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved, though I have worked on closely related articles and I have worked with most of the editors involved. I stumbled onto this discussion and would just like to say that I agree with Robert McClenon that an RfC (on this broad issue of article scope) would have the best chance of resolving this dispute. R2 (bleep) 17:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Draft talk:National drinksEdit

  – New discussion.
Filed by 76.167.176.54 on 21:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I submitted a page on "National drinks" which has been declined primarily because the editor dealing with submissions thinks that it could be combined somehow with the "List of national liquors" page. Rybkovich and I believe that two separate pages would be best. A discussion of this issue can be found in the talk page for National drinks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

So far we have just had a discussion amongst the 3 of us.

How do you think we can help?

You could help by giving your opinion on the matter, and perhaps in other ways also.

Summary of dispute by RybkovichEdit

The Draft:National drinks article was created by newbie @BrieDeChevre: who intended to list drinks that are identified by countries as their national drink. @AngusWOOF: rejected the submission, stating that "This needs to be discussed first whether to split national drinks from national liquors." Pre existing "National drink" (not plural) reference pointed to "National liquors", however the scope of the liquors article was never intended to include other kinds of national drinks. Another grounds for refusal was BrieDeChevre's categorising the countries by their geographical region, not alphabetically. Further, AngusWoof pointed out that there are no legitimate sources that list non-alcoholic drinks as national drinks. Finally, AngusWoof thought it was wrong to include descriptions of the drinks, and that just a simple listing with references should be used. I don't think any of those objections justify rejection of BrieDeChevre's submission. Rybkovich (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AngusWOOFEdit

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

My concerns are mainly along the lines of listcruft WP:LISTCRUFT and indiscriminate listing:

  1. Content fork WP:CFORK with List of national liquors. A list of national drinks would be a superset of all the liquors there.
  2. Listing the drinks twice. Once under region, the second time under alphabetical order. Note the List of national liquors is a simple listing without flagicons or regional divisions: Country: drink1, drink2, etc.
  3. Excessive descriptions of the drinks themselves. It does not need a detailed paragraph of what Boba tea is, rather, it should describe how it is recognized as a national drink, or be a simple listing. What if two countries claim boba tea as their national drink?
  4. Original research - what qualifies for the list should be documented by reliable sources saying that it is a national drink, not just that it is a popular drink) and not the editors' popular opinions. It also should be supported by multiple RS if it appears the first RS is some writer's opinion and not officially noted.
  5. Historical national drinks. What about countries that no longer exist, but have a national drink? Should they be noted?

I also wanted more than just a handful of participants to discuss this so as to see what the community thinks of spinning off the list. If you're all okay with the superset and can get the list under control then it can come out of draft. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft talk:National drinks discussionEdit

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. This noticeboard is not the usual place for discussing whether to accept a draft as an article. That is normally done by discussion between the draft author and the reviewer. If that fails, and the draft is moved into article space, a deletion discussion can be held to decide whether to keep two articles or the merge one article into the other. At this point, it appears to me that the draft article is not sufficiently complete to be accepted into article space, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you please specify your objection? Do you think more countries should be filled in under each category? The draft has not been requested to be deleted, and @AngusWOOF: requested other editors to comment. Rybkovich (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Robert McClenon:, and thanks for your comments. Above you state that "the filing editor has not yet notified the other editors". Am I the filing editor? On the Draft talk:National drinks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) page I wrote that I submitted our issue to dispute resolution and I pinged the other 2 editors (@AngusWOOF:@Rybkovich:). Is there another way that I am supposed to notify them? BrieDeChevre (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BrieDeChevre - Yes. On their user talk page. Some editors do not have ping enabled, and some talk pages are robotically archived quickly. {{drn-notice}} is one way to do this. If they have already responded, it is not necessary to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Robert McClenon:. I went to AngusWOOF's talk page and notified him that our issues have been taken to dispute resolution and he filled out his section on this disput resolution page and so now all editors have made their contributions to this dispute resolution page. AngusWOOF "declined" my draft submission and said he wanted more feedback from editors before making it an article. I would like clarification when you say that "the draft article is not sufficiently complete to be accepted into article space". Isn't the draft at least good enough to be a stub whereby editors can then help flesh it out? I've seen stubs with like 2 or 3 sentences. What are our next steps? How do we have our case "opened by a volunteer" and have them look at the draft submission and draft talk page and give feedback? Thanks. BrieDeChevre (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Volunteer Note - Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Ronz#Concerning_the_BLP_vios_in_two_articlesEdit

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Talk:Erdős number#ScientiometricsEdit

  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Wikiman2718 on 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC).