Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 190

Industrial and organizational psychology

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Iss246 on 23:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Industrial and organizational psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Iss246 (talk · contribs) Sportstir (talk · contribs) WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) Psyc12 (talk · contribs) Ohpres (talk · contribs) ‎Patriciamoorehead (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am a long-time contributor to WP with more than 12,000 edits. I regret that I approached the Noticeboad previously but did not follow through. I was hoping to work out a compromise. I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until WP editor WhatamIdoing indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Industrial_and_organizational_psychology, Talk:Occupational_stress How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by. I would like a decision regarding the dispute Sportstir and I have regarding occupational stress as well. Summary of dispute by Sportstir Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. A bunch of editors all worked to appease Iss246's many demands that only his wording is acceptable. We all decided on the wording and developed consensus but Iss246 kept overturning the consensus and put his version back in against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC) I've also noticed Iss246 plays tricks as well as creating new accounts like brand new editor Ophres that then suspiciously comes into the discussion to support Iss246. They have also lied about me following them. I have only encountered Iss246 at these couple of articles. My problem with Iss246 is not so much what he is adding, although there seems top be an agenda, but the way they bully other editors and demand only their wording be used and no one else can change it or add to it. I would really like to hear from other editors like Psyc12. It is Psyc12's wording in both articles, not mine that Iss246 has an issue with. I repeat. I did not write the edits that Iss246 keeps reverting. They were written to appease Iss246' demands and to resolve the conflict and I just put their suggestions into the article. I admit this guy Iss246 has pissed me off and I'm really not invested in these topics but I saw him bully other editors to get his own way and play games to get anyone blocked who objects to any edits they make. I should have walked awy earlier and thought these issues had been resolved but 6 weeks later Iss246 came back to the article to go against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir is now accusing me of playing a trick by creating a sockpuppet named Ophres. Not true. What goes around comes around. I think Sportstir is acting like the now-barred Mrm7171 (who went by other names too), another WP editor who also followed me around, undoing my edits. I think the more important matter is to get closure on the i/o psychology edits and the occupational stress edits. Iss246 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing I have two thoughts: There seems to be some "territorial" behavior going on (not just on Wikipedia). Some people seem to feel like these related fields are in competition with each other, so some people from one field feel like they should downplay or avoid mentioning the competition. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to WP:Build the web between related articles (even between subjects much less closely related than this). If you are accustomed to "silo" thinking, then our methods of contextualizing and linking broadly probably do not come naturally. It would probably be appropriate at this point for Sportstir to carefully think back and let us know if there might have been any previous accounts at the English Wikipedia, and especially whether any of them are blocked/banned. This whole discussion, and this whole effort, sounds very, very, very similar to the one that ended a couple of years ago with a series of CheckUser blocks. There is a process in such cases for getting permission to edit again, but creating another account and pushing the same problematic viewpoint isn't it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC) OHP is not in a rivalry with i/o psychology. I wanted to point out that OHP is descended from i/o psychology and two other fields. That is not a rivalry. I have a source for that fact. Regarding the issue of a banned WP editor. Sportstir reminds me of the banned Mrm7171, who also shadowed me very closely. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC) WhatamIdoing did you notice editor Ohpres who only joined Wikipedia with a brand new account and username to boost Iss246's version and then made identical edits and opinions to Iss246. Is that allowed? To create a new account in the middle of discussion and pretend it's a new editor? Is that allowed WhatamIdoing? Sportstir (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Psyc12 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am confused. I suggested a compromise that I hoped would resolve the conflict about the I-O Psychology article between ISS246 and Sportstir, and I thought we all agreed. PatriciaMoorhead actually made the edit. Today I see that the edit has been reverted and the article is back to the disputed way it was originally. I agreed with ISS246 that the article should link to the occupational health psychology (OHP) article with a brief mention, and I agreed with Sportstir that this is a tangential issue, and it is not worth going into detail about which disciplines led to OHP--that can be covered in the OHP article. I suggested replacing With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46] With The I-O concern with worker health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology (OHP). [Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ Psyc12 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir, I propose another compromise. It is in two parts. One part is in the i/o psychology entry and the other part is in the occupational stress entry. 1. In the i/o psychology entry, I propose to modify this sentence: "With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" I would rewrite that sentence as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" 2. You wanted to place "particularly" in before "industrial and organizational psychology" in the following sentence: "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." I wanted to avoid naming one discipline above all the others, which the word "particularly" would imply. Because I do not want readers to think that i/o psychology was the one preeminent field in research on job stress, I would leave the sentence without the word "particularly." And then I turn to the opening sentence of the occupational stress entry: "Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job." As you know, I tried to change the expression "psychological stress" to "psychological distress." I would not make the change. The compromise allows both of us to get some of what we want. Iss246 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Iss246 this was the edit that Psyc12 made on 15 February as a compromise to appease you and we could all resolve this.[[1]] Psyc12 wrote "Restated to better reflect what sources said, while acknowledging prominence of IWO psychology" Please stop now falsely saying I was the one who made the edit and the wording "particularly" I just agreed. Psyc12 has again reiterated that position. Sportstir (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir, it does not matter who made the edit. Singling out i/o as preeminently more important than OHP, ergonomics, human factors is not sourced. I am offering a compromise. Iss246 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Iss246 the only editors who have commented here on actual content and us resolving this is you, me and Psyc12. I have gone with Psyc12's suggestions to appease you. However your compromise is virtually the same wording that you demanded of us before and you keep putting back in the article against consensus. This applies to both the articles we are discussing. What do you want to do here as you are the only editor who is supportive of your wording and I'm confused why it matters so much to you to be frank? I thought the wording Psyc12 suggested was perfectly good in both articles and well sourced too. Can I suggest letting this go? Sportstir (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Sportstir, WhatamIdoing commented here too. Why don't you reach out to Psyc12. Ask Psyc12 to respond in more detail. I will reach out again to Ohpres and PatriciaMoorehead. We need more input. Iss246 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ohpres Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I conduct research on occupational stress. I find iss246's edits to be balanced. I'm not sure I understand Sportstir's obstinacy. It is not controversial that Occupational Health Psychology emerged out of several disciplines/areas of research, including occupational medicine. What is so problematic with this observation in Sportstir's eyes? We should be able to find a solution rapidly. Summary of dispute by ‎Patriciamoorehead Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Industrial and organizational psychology discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. User:WhatamIdoing - Are you a principal in this dispute, or are you trying to resolve the dispute? If you are trying to mediate or moderate the dispute, you can be added to the list of volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Robert, I only know about this dispute because Iss246 requested a third opinion from me. I do wonder whether it would be more pointful to have a chat with the CUs at this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC) User:WhatamIdoing and user:Robert McClenon, I would appreciate if you and some other WP editors intercede and help resolve the disagreement between Sportstir and me. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC) User:WhatamIdoing - This is not SPI. If you think a CheckUser is needed, please file a sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Psyc) I am willing to try to moderate this dispute if the principal parties agree that they will accept me as the moderator. Please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not make the other parties any better informed. Comment on content, not contributors. That means talk about what you agree or disagree about rather than who you disagree with. Respond to my questions in the section for statements by the editors. Do not respond to each other. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion when answering my questions. If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the box I have provided. I am not an expert on the subject matter, and do not intend to do research on the subject matter. It is up to you to provide me with any answers. Now: Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they want either changed or left the same in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir and anyone else - Tell me what you do want, not what you don't want. Enter it in the section for your comments, not for my statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, I apologize if I said this already, I accept you as a moderator of the dispute outlined here on the Noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors (Psyc) User:Robert McClenon, I would like a much shortened, last sentence in the section occupational health and well-being in the i/o psychology entry to read as follows: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine. I would also like the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry to read: "A number of disciplines are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology." Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC) There is not just myself who disagrees with Iss246's wording as at least three independent editors have commented on the talk pages. We have all made concessions and changes to make this editor Iss246 happy yet they still only demand their wording and ignore the reasoning editors have provided. At what point does an editor step away and accept consensus Robert McClenon? Sportstir (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Psyc) User:Iss246 has proposed a rewrite of the last paragraph of the Historical Overview. Is it correct then that the difference of opinion is that the other editors want the Historical Overview left as is? Is that the difference of opinion? If so, please explain, in one paragraph, why it should be changed as proposed, or why the change should not be made. If you disagree about something else, state what. Please be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, the other editors are not of one mind. WhatamIdoing and Ohpres agree with me. Psyc12 agrees with Sportstir. I only want two things. One is that the i/o entry notes that OHP is descended from i/o along with health psychology and occupational medicine, which I sourced. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and would mislead readers. Second (this was part of a compromise I offered Sportstir regarding the i/o edit), I would also like to strike the word "particularly," which Sportstir had modified the words "industrial and organizational psychology" in the the last sentence of the second paragraph of the occupational stress entry because the word "particularly," in the context in which Sportstir inserted it, made it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. The three papers Sportstir cited to justify using the word "particularly" do not give i/o psychology the dominant role. The dominant theories in occupational stress, the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory) were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. I am for small edits that are more consistent with our best estimate of what the truth is. I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress but I hesitate to do that while in the midst of a dispute with Sportstir. Iss246 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC) WhatamIdoing did not agree with your wording Iss246 only that we could consider adding a comment about your area of work. The only editor who agreed was this brand new editor Ophres that started a new account in the middle of our discussions and then edited exactly the same way as Iss246. So there are at least 3 other editors who disagree with Iss246. Psyc12 also put the word "particularly" in the occupational stress article not me yet you try to make it seem as if I did. The current wording in the industrial organizational psychology article that the majority of editors apart from Iss246 was also written by Psyc12 but Iss246 tries to state it was mine. This is Psyc12's edit and I agreed with it as a compromise to Iss246. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. The article is very long as it is. Weighing it down further with irrelevant material is not helpful. Sportstir (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Psyc) Third statement by moderator (Psyc) Do not tell me what you think other editors think. Each editor should provide their own proposal, in Third Statements by Editors, of what you think the last sentence of the Historical Background should say. Do not reply in the section for the moderator. Reply in the Third Statements by Editors, but only for and about yourself. One proposed statement per editor. After we get the historical summaries, we can talk about why we want them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Psyc) I propose two things. 1. The i/o entry should not, as Sportstir proposes, make the claim that occupational health psychology (OHP) derives from i/o psychology because such a claim would mislead readers. The genealogy of OHP is this. OHP is descended from i/o and health psychology and occupational medicine. I have sourced that information. Sportstir wants to leave out health psychology and occupational medicine making it seem that OHP is wholly descended from i/o, which is wrong and misleading. 2. My attempt to compromise with Sportstir on the above matter involves the occupational stress entry. The second paragraph of the lead includes a list of fields in which researchers have studied occupational stress. The list includes clinical psychology, OHP, human factors and ergonomics, and i/o psychology. Sportstir insists on (a) deleting human factors and ergonomics and (b) placing the word "particularly" in front of i/o psychology. I would like to retain human factors and ergonomics because human factors researchers do much to enhance workplace safety and reduce stress. I would also delete Sportstir's word "particularly" because that modifier makes it seem as if i/o psychology plays the dominant role in research on occupational stress. He cited three book chapters regarding i/o but none of them indicate that i/o plays a dominant role in research on occupational stress. All disciplines mentioned play a role. I am reluctant to indicate that one is dominant. To underline my point. The most prominent theories in occupational stress research are the demand-control model (Karasek's theory) and the effort-reward imbalance model (Siegrist's theory). Both theories were developed by sociologists. A third, and almost as prominent theory of occupational stress, is conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll's), which was developed by a clinical psychologist. In view of the above, I would like to add sociology as one of the disciplines concerned with occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Stop pretending I was the one Iss246 who made these edits. It was Psyc12 and other editors who disagreed with you. I have tried to put those consensus developed changes into the article. I still don't see the relevance in your edits and you also keep putting your wording into the article while it is on the noticeboard and your version is against the consensus on the talk pages. Is occupational health psychology an area of psychology? I have looked it up online and it is not mentioned as a specialization in psychology? Maybe Wikipedia psychology editors would be able to help here too as anyone who has ever graduated with a psychology degree realizes and knows that organizational psych is the area of psychology which deals with organizations and stress interventions at the organizational level. The changes Iss246 is trying to make seems contrary to what any psych grad knows. Sportstir (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I am not pretending anything. Sportstir instigated these changes, which will mislead readers. 01:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Psyc) Comment on content, not contributors. Do not discuss who has said what. Do not say who you disagree with or what you disagree with. The objective is to get the right text for an article in Standard Written English that will be read by readers, and will not be signed. It is only the wording of the article that we are discussing. Now: Each editor is requested to provide their own wording for the last sentence or last paragraph of the Historical Summary. Just that, nothing else. Put it in the space labeled Fourth Statements by Editors. Sign your proposed statement, but it is a statement about a branch of psychology, not about the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Psyc) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. You are the only editor pushing for this wording and delete any other editors who have tried to reason with you or change your preferred wording or oppose your changes and adsditions. Quite amazing really is your persistence against the consensus. The record shows that it was Psyc12 made the change at the occupational stress article concerning the word "particularly" as I said [2] and their comment to justify their edit was "Restated to better reflect what sources said, while acknowledging prominence of IWO psychology" Please stop adding your preferred wording back in while we are discussing it here. Can you please respond to the questions I asked you as well regarding this field of occupational health psychology you are involved in. As I said I've googled it and apart from Wikipedia no other universities or other sites list this as a psychology discipline. I know Google isn't the best though lol so I just want to understand why Iss246 you believe your edit in the article is justified? Sportstir (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC) The last sentence of the Occupational health and well-being section of the Industrial and organizational psychology entry should read as follows: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine. The last sentence of the lead in the Occupational stress entry should read as follows: A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology. Iss246 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Would us leaving out the section on occupations in the lede of the occupational stress article altogether be an option here I wonder, as it seems to be causing a lot of unnecessary conflict. That would eliminate Iss246's insistence the word "particularly" is taken out. We could discuss occupations in the body of the article itself if need be. Sportstir (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC) In the industrial organizational psych article I propose Psyc12's wording IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. This would then redirect to the occupational health psychology article. I agree with other editors like Psyc12 in that if we include this sentence surely the mention of other specialist fields like occupational medicine and health psychology are not relevant and should not be included. Sportstir (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC) The occupational stress entry is relevant. It is part of the compromise I proposed to Sportstir. Adding the word "particularly" in the occupational stress entry inflates industrial and organizational psychology, which is a discipline within psychology that does not need inflating. As the i/o entry already shows, i/o encompasses a great deal. I should know because I made more than 100 edits in cleaning up the i/o entry before Sportstir arrived on the scene. Unfortunately, almost all Sportstir's activity on WP is to criticize me (e.g., claim that I am a sockpuppet) and try to reverse a small fraction of the edits I made on WP. He hardly does anything else on WP. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Please stop focusing on me and criticizing me and tell me why we need this sentence in the lede at all as I suggested removing it so no occupation seems better than another. Can you outline the reason you believe it is so important Iss246? Can the moderator also please ask Iss246 to focus not on me but on my question so we can resolve this? Sportstir (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir, I am not focusing on you personally, only editorially. We need the sentence in the lead to identify for readers the disciplines that are concerned with occupational stress. I would be okay with moving the sentence to a location elsewhere in the article as long as we don't indicate that one discipline is more ("particularly") concerned with occupational stress than another discipline. I would also delete the references, which are all book chapters that don't bear on which discipline is most concerned with occupational stress. Internal links around the disciplines are sufficient to make the point that each discipline is relevant to occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Psyc) Comment on content, not contributors. Each of you has your own space now. Put your proposal in there. You may sign another user's statement to agree with it, but you may not disagree with it. You may state why you support your statement. Do not disagree with another statement. The disagreeing is getting in the way of establishing what we are arguing about. Just state your statements. By the way, if anyone refers to another editor in their statement, I will consider requesting a one-way interaction ban. So don't say who you disagree with, and don't say what you disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Psyc) Proposal by Sportstir Would this work? IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. Sportstir (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Sportstir, what is your current view regarding deleting the word "particularly" from the last sentence in the lead of the occupational stress entry? Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) This is my current view. Also the references other editors put in seem good. Sportstir (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Proposal by Iss246 In the the i/o psychology entry I mentioned the connection of i/o to occupational health psychology (OHP). The genealogy of OHP is that it is descended from i/o, health psychology, and occupational medicine. I have sourced this. It is not unusual for a WP entry on a discipline to indicate that the discipline has roots in another discipline or helped give rise to another discipline. What I want to do in the i/o entry is to indicate the OHP has roots in i/o psychology but not exclusively in i/o psychology. Two other disciplines, health psychology and occupational medicine, have also contributed to the emergence of OHP. Cognitive stress has an impact on mood and contributes to the development of a mood disorder. Sportstir edited a sentence I wrote for the lead in the occupational stress entry such that he added the word "particularly." With his addition, that sentence reads, "A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, human factors and ergonomics, and particularly industrial and organizational psychology." The problem with the addition of "particularly" is that the sentence suggests that i/o psychology is the leading discipline within psychology concerned with occupational stress when there is no evidence that it is. He cited three book chapters but none of them indicate that i/o is the leading psychology discipline studying occupational stress. I think it is better to list the disciplines and not play favorites. Iss246 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Maybe we could talk about clinical psych being involved only with individual therapy once a worker has developed a psychiatric injury. Also I cannot see anywhere in the article that ergonomics is involved with work stress? Sportstir (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC) User:Sportstir, thank you for your quick response. While ergonomics is more generally concerned with the impact of work-related physical stress, which is indeed a dimension of occupational stress that has been underplayed in the occupational stress entry, ergonomics is also concerned with work-related cognitive stress. In addition, ergonomically-oriented research on long work hours and shift work reveals a link between those conditions and depressive symptoms. You are right that clinical psychology has dealt with occupational stress in the context of treating individuals who have been seriously harmed by occupational stress. By the same token, clinical psychologists also have played a role in research on occupational stress. For example, the researcher who developed conservation of resources theory is a clinical psychologist. I add that the developers of the demand-control and effort-reward imbalance models, influential theories of occupational stress, are sociologists. I recommend that we mention the disciplines involved with occupational stress research without singling any one of them out as a discipline that dominates the others. Iss246 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Proposal by Psyc12 Proposal by Ohpres Sixth statement by moderator Can the word 'particularly' be deleted, as proposed by User:Iss246? User:Sportstir - Do you have proposed wording about clinical psychology and stress and ergonomics? User:Iss246 - What do you think of the proposal by User:Sportstir? If you want to discuss with each other rather than with me, use the large space. Just be sure to be civil, but you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors Back-and-forth discussion User:Sportstir, as per the suggestion of user:Robert McClenon, I want to be civil and make a proposal. Regarding the sentence with "particularly" in the occupational stress entry, I would agree to delete not just the word "particularly" but the entire sentence then add perhaps two sentences to the section on occupations. In that section I would mention that the investigators in the disciplines human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, sociology, and occupational safety and health conduct research on job stress. I would not need to add citations of which there are many. Instead, I would rely on internal links. Given that I would remove the abovementioned sentence from the lead, I would like you to agree to my including the sentence on the genealogy of OHP, mentioning that it is descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine.Iss246 (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) I would be interested in Iss246's reaction to my proposal and questions. I also thought we were talking about 'occupations' in the section being discussed in the occupational stress article not research and theories? I cannot see why there is a need to be focusing on specific occupations involved in occupational stress at all, but if we do attempt to include it we should only be talking about occupations. I have also proposed specific wording for both articles and am not sure if there has been a reply. Sportstir (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC). User:Sportstir, my replies are below. I provided a much briefer rewrite of the section on occupations and explain my proposal. I began formulating the rewrite on May 20 and wrote it on May 21. Iss246 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I think it would be informative for readers to know what professions are concerned with occupational stress. If we were writing about clinical psychology readers would know that there are clinical psychologists. If we write about occupational stress, there are no profession with a cognate title. It would be helpful and informative for readers to learn what kinds of professionals are involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. I add that we would not be "focusing." We would spend perhaps at most one or two sentences identifying those professions. Iss246 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC) I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make. The occupations section of the occupational stress entry should describe professions that deal with occupational stress in research and/or practice. It already does some of that. That section would be an apt place for readers to find out about those professions. We should keep the section brief by supplying internal links to the articles about the relevant disciplines. We can rename the section, something like "Disciplines concerned with research and practice involving occupational stress." Iss246 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC) With regard to the occupational stress encyclopedia entry, I recommend discarding the section entitled “occupations” because it could be misinterpreted by readers to refer to stressful occupations when the purpose of the section is to cover professionals whose goal is to reduce job stress. The replacement section does not select one group of professionals as being more focused on occupational stress than another group of professionals. I propose to replace the current section with the following briefer section. Note that the replacement title of the section is more apt. Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. If we cannot use the wording other editors like Psyc12 wrote I think we need to leave this section out completely. Proposed wording seems like synthesis of material. For instance saying sociologists help organisations alleviate occupational stress is simply untrue. If we cannot provide 'weighting' to each occupation, which it seems we cannot, then leave discussion of occupations out completely in the occupational stress article. Sportstir (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon and user:Sportstir, can we resolve the disagreement at hand? The disagreement revolves around the occupational stress entry and the industrial and organizational psychology entry. (A) I would like your assent for the brief, neutrally worded description I wrote regarding the professions involved in research and practice vis-à-vis occupational stress. The brief description would replace the current section on occupations. I placed the description above. I would also remove mention of the professions in the lead of the article. (B) This pertains to the i/o entry. In view of the fact that other encyclopedia articles mention that some disciplines give rise to other disciplines (e.g., clinical psychology --> health psychology), I would like your assent regarding my briefly mentioning that occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology along with health psychology and occupational medicine. Iss246 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) It should be noted that a number of concessions have already been made at those two articles and I am against the changes for the reasons I've outlined. I've proposed we use another editor's exact wording which I've copied into this discussion previously. It seems to have made the most sense and is backed by the sources. I think some acknowledgement of these facts is needed here. Sportstir (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC) My wording is backed by sources, both from scholarly publications and sources in other Wikipedia articles. (A) Occupational stress has been researched and treated by professionals who identify with these disciplines: occupational health psychology (see the sources in the WP article), industrial and organizational psychology (see the sources in the WP article), sociology (Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2011). Work and mental health in social context. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0625-9), human factors and ergonomics (Feuerstein, M. Nicholas, R.A., Huang, G.D., Dimberg, L., Ali, D., & Rogers, H. (2004). Job stress management and ergonomic intervention for work-related upper extremity symptoms. Applied Ergonomics, 35, 565-574. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.05.003), clinical psychology (Firth‐Cozens, J., & Hardy, G.E., (1992). Occupational stress, clinical treatment and changes in job perceptions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 81-88. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00486.x), and occupational safety and health (Murphy, L. R. (2002). Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972–2002. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, Vol. 2, Historical and current perspectives on stress and health. (pp. 1-55). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.). (B) Occupational health psychology is descended from i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine (Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5, (pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.). So let us stop this dickering and allow me to go ahead with the edits, which I carefully justify. I have additional sources but I don't want to overload this page. I appeal to User:Robert McClenon and other interested parties. I would like to proceed. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) I am a job stress researcher. I support the edits iss246 wants to make. Ohpres Can additional editors weigh in on this matter? Iss246 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC) There have been so many changes proposed that I was finding it difficult to find them all. To that end, I've added some colored-box formatting on the ones that I noticed. If you particularly dislike it, you may of course remove it from your own comments, but I think it may be helpful overall. User:Iss246, assuming that these refs (Tausig, etc.) support the text below, I think that's not unreasonable. User:Sportstir, about that whole "particularly" debate, I wonder whether you could tell me: (a) whether you think that the 'particularly' language has the effect of somewhat elevating the one field over the others, and (b) whether you think elevating the one field is appropriate (e.g., the one field does significantly more in this area than the others – one would not want always to treat major and minor things as equivalent, after all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Interruption by moderator - The back-and-forth discussion here can continue, but I would like to get a brief statement by each editor in the Seventh Statements. It doesn't appear that we have agreement, so we need to state the alternatives so that we can have a Request for Comments. So please concisely summarize your position. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator Now that there has been extended discussion, will each editor please summarize briefly what they propose and what they agree with and disagree with? Be concise. We would like to get this resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors User:WhatamIdoing and User:User:Robert McClenon, the above sections of the Noticeboard can be confusing. I want to provide you with clarity. Here is what I propose. 1. In the occupational stress entry, I would replace the current section entitled "Occupations" with the much briefer section I wrote on this page that I entitled "Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice." It now has the vertical green line to its left. Thank you WhatamIdoing for inserting that vertical green line. It is helpful. 2. I would also delete the second paragraph of the lead ("A number of disciplines within psychology are concerned with occupational stress including clinical psychology, occupational health psychology, [3] human factors and ergonomics, and industrial and organizational psychology [4][5][6]."). It was in there that Sportstir inserted the word "particularly" in front of industrial and organizational psychology to give it prominence above the other disciplines. The sources that he cited, of which I read all, don't support the view that i/o psychology is the leader among all other fields in occupational stress research and practice. This is not the place to pick a winner. Each of the professions I enumerated in the compact replacement paragraph marked by the green vertical line is concerned with occupational stress. 3. In the industrial and organizational psychology entry, the last sentence of the section entitled "Occupational health and well-being" reads as follows: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Although OHP is descended from i/o psychology, it is not descended from i/o psychology alone. Historical accuracy is important, as is brevity. Finally, Sportstir cites Prof. Spector for justifying yet another edit of what I wrote. Prof. Spector's recent blog indicates, if anything, that i/o psychology came late to the problem of occupational stress (http://paulspector.com/organizational-behavior/employee-mental-and-physical-health/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/). I would like to keep the sentence about the descent of OHP the way I wrote it without Sportstir changing my edit. Thank you. Iss246 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Eighth Statement by Moderator Okay. I am trying to capture what is being discussed and requested. Will the editors please state whether they agree. I would at least like to get specific points of disagreement that can be put to RFC. If I can't get the editors to agree even on what the choices are, this will be failed, and will probably wind up at WP:ANI, which will just be sort of random as to who gets topic-banned, so please at least let me know whether we can summarize what the disagreement is about. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Point 1: Change Occupations to Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health. Point 2: Delete second paragraph of lede. Nothing useful here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Point 3: I don't understand what is being requested. Sorry User:Robert McClenon. I should have been clearer about Point 3. I request that Sportstir continue to desist from reverting the following sentence I wrote in the i/o psychology entry (found at the conclusion of the section of the section on occupational health and well-being): "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Iss246 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Robert McClenon I have not referred to this other editor above because you said if either of us do we will be interaction banned but this other editor keeps referring to me and ignoring your warning. I totally disagree with the wording proposed by this other editor for the reasons I've mentioned. Sportstir (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC) Statement 8.5 by moderator Will the editors please indicate, below, whether they agree on point 1 or whether they agree to disagree on point 1. Will the editors please indicate whether they agree on point 2 or whether they agree to disagree on point 2. If there is agreement to disagree, we can have a Request for Comments. If there is agreement, that is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC) I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Point 3. In the i/o psychology entry, I would like to maintain this sentence because it is historically accurate: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" Iss246 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Again, I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I am all for a Request for Comments. The preferred wording that Psyc12 suggested and their reasoning behind it should be compared with any other option. IO psychology's concern with occupational health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology. Sportstir (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice Professionals from several fields conduct research on the causes of occupational stress and interventions that prevent or treat occupational stress. Other professionals are practitioners who consult with organizations regarding how to make the work environment less stressful or to treat individual casualties of job stress. These professionals come from a number of fields including occupational health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology, sociology, human factors and ergonomics, clinical psychology, and occupational safety and health. Iss246 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC) I endorse the edits made by Iss246. Ohpres (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC) We are going around in circles. Can we have a request for comments on this edit as well? We would need to alert all interested psychology editors who have a good knowledge of the psychology profession. Sportstir (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC) References Statement Nine by Moderator I am trying to get the ballot printed to indicate what the RFC is about, but the editors keep coloring outside the lines. Stop replying to each other!! Reply only to me!! I have created a page: User:Robert McClenon/Psychology Dispute. Edit it. Do not endorse anything. Edit only where it says to put your stuff, where your stuff is what will go to the RFC. If you have questions, ask me on my talk page how to do this. I think we almost agree on what we disagree about, but if I can't you to tell me what to put in the RFC, I will fail this discussion and let you fight it out at WP:ANI. So color your statements inside the lines~ Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Statement Ten by Moderator I have initiated the RFC with regard to Occupational stress, which was item 2. I have no idea what item 1 was. As to item 3, I see a request to keep it, but I do not see a request to delete or change it. You have been too busy agreeing and disagreeing to state clearly what the issues are. Please explain in the portion below what items 1 and 3 are. Otherwise I will close this dispute as pending the RFC on item 2 and with no resolution on the other two items. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Tenth Statements by Editors Robert, I believe that "Point 1" is a proposal to replace the two paragraphs currently at Occupational stress#Occupations with the three sentences at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Professions That Address Occupational Stress in Research and Practice. (If this proposal is accepted, then I suggest a much shorter section heading, such as ===Related professions===.) "Point 3" appears to be a request for some sort of injunction that prevents editors from removing a sentence that is currently in the article. That's not a normal thing to do. Wikipedia:Consensus can change, and that sometimes means removing sentences that were previously agreed upon. An individual could earn a WP:TBAN, but I hope that won't happen.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Regarding item 3, I (user:iss246) apologize if I made the item look like an injunction. I don't oppose editing. I do oppose editing that distorts the truth. The sentence in question that has been subject to distortion is this: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" I explain . Another editor proposed two changes to the above sentence that, in the interest of historical accuracy, I resist. One edit made it seem as if occupational health psychology was wholly descended from i/o psychology, which isn't true. The other edit made it seem that OHP and i/o psychology have considerable overlap, which also isn't true. There is some overlap. Occupational stress is a big part of OHP. But occupational stress is a relatively smaller part of i/o psychology. Prof. Spector, a leading i/o researcher, observed that i/o psychology came late to the study of work, stress, and health [3]. That is understandable. With i/o's concern for job analysis, performance appraisal, remunerating employees, organizational culture, selection and recruitment of personnel, workplace motivation, teamwork, task design, job performance, leadership, etc., concern for occupational stress occupies one relatively small corner of i/o psychology. 02:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Eleventh Statement by Moderator Is there anything else that the editors want to say, to me, or can they resume discussion on the article talk page? It appears that, now that civility has resumed, any discussion can continue on the article talk page. Unless an issue is identified within 24 hours requiring moderated discussion, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC) User:Robert McClenon, civility is back thanks to your efforts. Can we put on the talk page of the article my recommendation regarding item 3? I recommend that in the i/o psychology entry, the following sentence be maintained for the time being because it is historically accurate: "In the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]" I can be edited as long as historical accuracy is preserved. I don't oppose editing. However, I do oppose editing that leaves an inaccurate impression with readers. Another editor proposed two changes to the above sentence that, in the interest of accuracy, I resist. One edit made it seem as if occupational health psychology was wholly descended from i/o psychology, which isn't true, as the above sentence indicates. The other edit made it seem that OHP and i/o psychology have considerable overlap, which also isn't true. To be sure, there is some overlap. Occupational stress is a big part of OHP. But occupational stress plays a relatively smaller role in i/o psychology. Prof. Spector, a leading i/o researcher, observed that i/o psychology came late to the study of occupational stress[3]. That is not an indictment of i/o psychology. With i/o's concern for job analysis, performance appraisal, remunerating employees, organizational culture, selection and recruitment of personnel, workplace motivation, teamwork, task design, job performance, leadership, etc., naturally occupational stress occupies one relatively small corner of i/o psychology. Iss246 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks Robert McClennon. I totally disagree with the proposed wording above and the editor's rationale and basis to these false claims about IWO psychology. I will put the original wording back in the article and recommence civil discussion on the talk page. Sportstir (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I included the sources to support the wording, (e.g., Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.). Moreover, Paul Spector, an international expert on i/o psychology and the individual whose textbook the person with whom I disagree has cited, wrote the following: The psychology establishment was ignoring stress and other OHP issues. The area of psychology most concerned with the workplace, Industrial-Organizational (IO) psychology, until recently, rarely dealt with issues of employee health. For example, when I wrote the first edition of my IO textbook in the early 1990s, one of the publisher’s peer reviewers recommended I remove the health and safety chapter because it did not fit in a book on IO.[4] Iss246 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Eleventh Statements by Editors I often use sources that are behind paywalls - they can at times be the best source. It's also possible to get other editors to provide sources at WP:Resource requests. However in the case of War of Words: The Controversy over the Definition of Lynching, 1899-1940, it's not necessary as you can read it free online.[5] Doug Weller talk 14:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Twelfth Statement by Moderator Is there another issue that the editors want to work out, or should I close this dispute? If there is another issue, you must reply in the space marked Twelfth Statements by Editors, not immediately after this statement. I have been very patient with the inability of the editors in this case to color within the lines. Now: Is there a remaining issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Twelfth Statements by Editors 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.

Draft:BRIDGEi2i Analytics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Jagdeb03 on 13:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Draft:BRIDGEi2i Analytics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doc James (talk · contribs) PuraVida18 (talk · contribs) GSS (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been disagreement between various editors whether this should stay in Draft or a Page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:BRIDGEi2i_Analytics&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A judgment on whether this article should stay a draft, or be moved to a page or deleted permanently. Summary of dispute by Doc James Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by PuraVida18 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by GSS Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Draft:BRIDGEi2i Analytics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Taiwan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Visaliaw on 01:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Visaliaw (talk · contribs) Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs) Ythlev (talk · contribs) Matt Smith (talk · contribs) Phlar (talk · contribs) Quetstar (talk · contribs) De wafelenbak (talk · contribs) TaerkastUA (talk · contribs) MarkH21 (talk · contribs) Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Benlisquare (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Khajidha (talk · contribs) Chess (talk · contribs) Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Taiwanese government website says it's official name is Republic of China (Taiwan). Many news articles describe Republic of China as official name. The current version of the article describes Republic of China as official name in the first sentence and does not mention Republic of China (Taiwan). There has been extensive discussion about how the article should describe the official name but no agreement has been reached. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Taiwan#Republic_of_China_(Taiwan) Talk:Taiwan#Full_Protection_is_not_necessary Talk:Taiwan#Proposed change How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Moderate the discussion and help us decide how the article should describe the official name. Summary of dispute by Geographyinitiative Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ythlev Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Matt Smith Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Phlar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Quetstar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by De wafelenbak Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TaerkastUA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MarkH21 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SmokeyJoe Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Benlisquare Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Khajidha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Chess Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Horse Eye Jack Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Taiwan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - With 17 editors, it is usually easier to use a Request for Comments to determine rough consensus than to moderate the discussion. Trying to moderate a discussion with 17 editors may resemble trying to herd 5 sheep, 5 cats, 2 rabbits, 1 border collie, 1 terrier, 1 llama, and 1 woodchuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note @Robert McClenon: I tend to agree with you, but maybe it could also be a figure case for multiple moderators? I find this would be a very interesting challenge! I am willing to take it if editors don't want to file a WP:RFC. I have plenty of wikipedia time in front of me. Feynstein (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note @Visaliaw: What you first need to do is go around the user talk pages of the editors you involved and notify them about this case. Then toguether you will be able to decide if this requires a RfC. Feynstein (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC) As I already mentioned to Visaliaw at both User talk:Visaliaw#DRN vs RFC and Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes, I would much rather go through an RfC than a giant DRN thread. It would save a lot of time and be a significantly simpler way of determining consensus. — MarkH21talk 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Sure, I will open an RfC.--Visaliaw (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Perfect, I will be closing this dispute then. Feynstein (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2020 (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.

Template:George Floyd protests map

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Kire1975 on 03:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template:George Floyd protests map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kire1975 (talk · contribs) Numberguy6 (talk · contribs) Ravimdholakia (talk · contribs) phoebe (talk · contribs) .Mouthpity (talk · contribs) Ɱ (talk · contribs) Frietjes (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Numberguy6 has decided to take WP:OWNERSHIP of the map that a lot of people have been working on for three weeks by arbitrarily deciding that there is a "no individual neighborhoods" rule that was never discussed or brought to consensus about on the talk page before now. When User:Ravimdholakia reverted his massive removal, Numberguy6 reverted that edit and wrote discuss on talk page but has made no effort whatsoever to see past his self-perceived ownership of the issue. He has arbitrarily decided that points on the map are only allowed to be "defined by the U.S. Census Bureau" and provides no link to where these definitions exist despite being asked. His only defense is "How is that arbitrary?" He ignores the argument that protests are reported in reliable sources where they occur, in cities, neighborhoods, towns, townships, boroughs, CDPs, parks, and bridges. He ignores that cities like New York, San Diego and Los Angeles are between 300 and 500 square miles wide and often have three or more protests in different locations large enough to be on the map per day. He makes claims like Detroit and San Francisco do not have published official maps then ignores wiki pages like List of neighborhoods in Detroit and List of neighborhoods in San Francisco. Finally, he "proposes" to define the word "location" as must needs being tied to something about the UN now without even acknowledging that the map is about protests not locations. If a reliable source reports a protest with 100+ attendees occurs at a specific location, there is no reason not to have it on the map at that location, whether it be a park, a private business or intersection. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Template_talk:George_Floyd_protests_map#Neighborhoods. At 17:30, 14 June 2020 on the talk page, I attempted to ping other regular contributors like @Phoebe: @Mouthpity: @Ravimdholakia: @Ɱ: @Frietjes. Only one replied saying she was "undecided". How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Locations of protests with 100+ people reported in reliable sources should be allowed on the map regardless of whatever the UN or the U.S. Census Bureau says about the boundaries of the legal municipality they exist in. If an alternative to these conditions is to be the case, then sensible reasons must be given, requests for explanations must not be disregarded, sources for the data restrictions defined must be provided and approved & appropriate WP policies need to be referenced Summary of dispute by Numberguy6 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ravimdholakia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by phoebe Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by .Mouthpity Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ɱ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Frietjes Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:George Floyd protests map discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Julian Assange

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Darouet on 22:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darouet (talk · contribs) Jack Upland (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Burrobert (talk · contribs) Thucydides411 (talk · contribs) Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs) SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) Dispute overview For over a year now, editorial views at Julian Assange have been, roughly, divided into two groups. One group favors emphasizing Assange's role in the 2016 US elections, and connections with Russia. The other group favors emphasizing Assange's other Wikileaks publications, and international (e.g. UN) views of his work and imprisonment. The result of this editorial division is article gridlock: proposed additions or deletions are almost always opposed by one or the other group of editors. But editors have also repeatedly expressed interest in dispute resolution, and have even suggested concrete avenues for reaching a consensus on the article. We hoped that a structured discussion with the aid of a moderator would help. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We hope you can help us come to an agreement on how much weight to accord different aspects of Julian Assange's life, in his biography here. We think this is possible through a structured and mediated discussion of how to accord due weight, based on reliable sources. Julian Assange discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment: Since there are a lot of separate content disputes here, should this not be separated out into different sections, possibly solved one at a time? Right now, it's not really clear what your goal is. Notrium (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks @Notrium: I think the largest dispute is over due weight: how should content in the article be apportioned? Once that's resolved I think we'd be able to tackle a few of the sections one by one. -Darouet (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to be commenting here (please kick me out if necessary), but doesn't due weight depend on the content and the source? That's why I said this should probably be split into discussions for each content dispute. Notrium (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC) This is not a large enough list of editors, nor does it represent the various editorial viewpoints that have been expressed on the talk page, to achieve any credible consensus on article text. I don't think this is a fruitful avenue for this dispute. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Which additional editors should be included? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC) @Notrium: are you a dispute resolution volunteer? I don’t mean to be rude, but editors have been discussing the possibility of resolving this longstanding dispute at DR for quite some time now, and general agreement for this approach was recently achieved at Talk:Julian Assange. If you’re not a volunteer, let’s perhaps wait for one to comment. Dispute resolution is considered preferable by editors who engage in content creation to another few years of article stasis and edit warring. -Darouet (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) OK, no more comments from me. I just wanted to point out what seemed like an obvious issue when I saw this accidentally. Notrium (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC) "General agreement, per my comment above, was among a tiny fraction of the nearly 1000 editors who watch the page. Feel free to contribute as appropriate, @Notrium:, and thank you for your comments. SPECIFICO talk 13:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I do not think this is even a vaguely accurate description of the dispute. Not all of us neatly fit into these "sides" and have argued that we may in fact give over much detail on many matter, not just "the sides" version of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) This DR is stillborn and will only waste the time of our volunteer mediators. It should be closed. We have two editors who have long opposed the mainstream view and talk page consensus at the article pages and hundreds of others who are not even named in this request. SPECIFICO talk 13:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC) I wrote roughly, divided into two groups (my words), not neatly fit into these "sides" (your words). @Slatersteven: do you see the difference between these two statements? Nor did I write all of us (your words). I don't think it's fruitful to launch an RfC by belaboring every potential view: editors are supposed to come and describe their view of the dispute. Let's go back to the talk page and figure out how to do that. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing to re-launch DR request The editors commenting here were able to launch the RfC earlier if they wished to, using whatever words they wished. DR does not need to and should not involve everyone who watches a given page or participated in an RfC. Nevertheless, given that Slatersteven who previously stated "lets have DR and try and resolve this all first" also states here that they have a variety of objections to my DR summary, I'd like to withdraw this request until we come to agreement at Talk:Julian Assange about how to start the DR. Thanks. -Darouet (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (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.

Ice Cube

Closed 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. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Josemolero on 05:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ice Cube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Josemolero (talk · contribs) Occurring (talk · contribs) Pennsylvania2 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A section on accusations of anti-Semitism is continuously getting removed by an editor. There is substantial international press all over the internet about Ice Cube's tweets and history of anti-Semitism. An editor continuously deletes this section to minimize the controversy. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ice_Cube How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need some moderation here so the anti-Semitism section is not continuously removed. It has been removed twice despite more than one editor agreeing it belongs. Some assistance would be appreciated to determine what's fair! Perhaps Occurring's ability to delete the section should be barred. Otherwise, he seems knowledgeable about other areas of the article. Summary of dispute by Occurring Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Pennsylvania2 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ice Cube discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - Please inform all the involved editors of this discussion via their respective talk pages. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer note - I notice that the discussion on the article's talk page is getting more frustrated. I'd be happy to moderate, provided all parties are notified and agree to the case. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer note - I'll give this one more day. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2020 (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.

Leopold Ružička

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Notrium on 16:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Leopold Ružička (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Notrium (talk · contribs) KIENGIR (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Ružička is described in the lead as a "Croatian-Swiss scientist", where Croatian (sic) stands for his ethnicity, and Swiss for his nationality. This is in conflict with the guideline MOS:ETHNICITY, which says "Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.", while also giving the relevant example of Cesar Chavez: described in his lead as just "American", despite his Mexican ethnicity. Small note: please mind the difference between nationality and ethnicity. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Leopold_Ružička#MOS:ETHNICITY How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think the dispute will be resolved when misunderstandings about MOS:ETHNICITY, that either KIENGIR or I have, have been cleared up. Summary of dispute by KIENGIR Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The discussion may be read on the article's talk page. The subject is a Croatian Noble Prize winner, hence mentioning his ethnicity as well is relevantly notable, hence does not violate MOS:ETHNICITY.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)) Leopold Ružička discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment Note that this is also a very similar dispute to what has led to an RfC here (a page which is listed at the appropriate WP:LAME subsection, if you had doubts). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC) Moderator's first statement Greetings, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to moderate this dispute. I did also notify the user user:Sadko because they have participated in the discussion on the talk page as well. To begin with- will all parties please confirm they are willing to participate in this discussion with open minds and no personal attacks? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Yes, no personal attacks and with as open a mind as I can manage. Notrium (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Participant Discussion 1 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.

UFC 251

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kent Bargo on 21:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 UFC 251 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kent Bargo (talk · contribs) Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There a dispute over simple issue. The arena has no name yet, but another user say there is. The source does not verify the arena name. This source https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/29294243/ufc-251-know-know-fight-island pretty much made it clear there no arena name yet. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gsfelipe94#No_Arena_Name How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Keep the Venue on the info box blank until more information released Summary of dispute by Gsfelipe94 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. UFC 251 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note User:Kent Bargo raised a discussion on Talk:UFC 251 on 19 June 2020 and raised this dispute resolution noticeboard on the same day without waiting for editors to respond or discuss which should be the normal process. Editors should try to work together and helping each and in collaboration and DRN and ANI should be the last place unless issues ready cant be resolved. The UFC event page, UFC always lists the venues, cities and countries for all the events - example see - here. For UFC 251 UFC listed "UFC Fight Island" is the venue - see here. This should be discussed in article talk page first. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 03:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Dispute https://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/29294243/ufc-251-know-know-fight-island espn source stated pretty clear under the "What venue will host the UFC?" section. The arena has no name yet. So the venue should be remove or changed to N/A. "Fight Island" is just PR stuff for advertising or promotion purposes. The actual arena name has not been released yet. Kent Bargo (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2020 (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.

Impulse (TV series)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Debresser on 22:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Impulse (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Debresser (talk · contribs)
• Alex 21 (talk · contribs)
• Spanneraol (talk · contribs)
• Joeyconnick (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The question is whether our Wikipedia article on the TV series Impulse should say that the series is "inspired by", "based on" or "loosely based on" the book Impulse by Steven Gould. There is a source that uses "based on", but it seems clear that this is not completely correct, since only a general idea was taken from that book.

A talkpage discussion of 3 editors decided 2 against 1 in favor of the language "based on". When I, the disagreeing editor, decided to tag the statement as disputed, that tag was removed with the claim that the talkpage discussion had show a clear consensus.

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

Talk:Impulse_(TV_series)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Advice on what considerations should be overriding, strict adherence the language of sources or allowing to slightly adjust the language of the source if it seems clear that the source wasn't reflecting the facts in a precise way?

Advice on whether a talkpage discussion of 3 editors, reaching a 2 against 1 conclusion, justifies removal of a disputed statement tag.

Impulse (TV series) discussion

hello. i am willing to moderate this dispute. if you let me Clone commando sev (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

With pleasure. That why I came here. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

cool. but first. have all the involved users been notified on their talk page? there is a template for it. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I had not done so. Hadn't noticed that part of the instructions. Done now. Debresser (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Well to me this was pretty simple.. reliable sources say this series was based on the book.. that's how it was in the article. The user Debresser wanted to insert his own POV opinion that it was "loosely" based on it.. though there are zero reliable sources that say that.. and the term "based on" is what was in the credits of the show and in the sources.. how closely it was based on it was irrelevant. He was not able to get any support for his position on the talk page so now he is forum shopping. Spanneraol (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My take is very similar to Spanneraol: sources say the tv series is based on the book. Trying to specify how closely or loosely an adaptation "adheres" to the source material is the ultimate in subjectivity. Unless the vast preponderance of sources repeatedly claimed the series was "loosely based on" the material, the approach Debresser is promoting has no leg to stand on. And even if sources did overwhelmingly say "loosely based", there's been no indication that "based on" is sufficiently different from "loosely based on" that any distinction needs to be made or, more importantly, that such a distinction would enhance the article in question. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Boston Herald says "loosely based on",[11] and Nerd says "inspired by".[12] As I argued above, the difference between those terms and "based on" is substantial, as the latter is not fit for what is no more than taking one central idea from the book and making it into a whole series. By the way, I did not appreciate the forumshopping accusation, as it was a bad faith accusation and stands at complete odds with the purpose of this whole noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

i know wikipedia is all about sourcing and being verifiable, but. how accurate to the books is the series? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not a sentence that should be said. i know wikipedia is all about sourcing and being verifiable, but. There is no "but". Wikipedia is all about sourcing and being verifiable, that's it, that's Wikipedia. Hence, if the majority of sources state that the series is based on the book, as well as the series itself stating so in the credits, then the series is based on the book. As Joeyconnick already said (emphasis is my own): Unless the vast preponderance of sources repeatedly claimed the series was "loosely based on" the material, the approach Debresser is promoting has no leg to stand on; two outside reviews of the series do not change this. There is more support for the fact that there is no substantial difference between "loosely based" and "based", meaning that it comes down to one editor's personal opinion on the two terms; this is further supported by statements there were given as direct personal beliefs here (And I think that the stated reason of that edit is very correct "if literally the only thing they adapted was "what if a teenage girl can teleport", it's an inspiration, not an adaptation.), here (It is rather the premise of a girl who can teleport that inspired the series. So let's say "inspired") and here (You can read our Impulse (Steven Gould novel) article, and see for yourself, that the plot has nothing in common with this series apart from the premise of a teleporting girl.; Spanneraol's comment of you just did by reading a plot summary and making an inference rings true).

(And Debresser, don't get mad at other editors' claims after you claim Alex 21 agrees with this when he most certainly does not; do not make false claims and you won't get them back.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

i understand. sorry. i was just trying to get an understanding of the issue. i am sorry that it sounded like i was trying to undermine the sourcing policy. Clone commando sev (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That is fine, because in this case, that is part of the issue. We should indeed base ourselves on sources, but where sources are not high quality (not academic, for example), there is nothing in policy that says we should perpetuate the inaccuracies of sources. Furthermore, WP:5P5 clearly gives us a mandate to do this. Especially since I have pointed out a few sources that were more precise and correct in their wording.

I think we could ask editors at Impulse (Steven Gould novel) to weigh in on the factual aspect of the discussion. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

again.. none of that matters... it doesn't matter how closely it follows the book.. it is still based on it.. and that is what the credits say... anything else is subjective. Spanneraol (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

We should indeed base ourselves on sources, but where sources are not high quality (not academic, for example), there is nothing in policy that says we should perpetuate the inaccuracies of sources. So, you yourself admit that the two baseless "sources" you provided do not need to apply to this situation, as they are most certainly not of high quality or academic standards; they're reviews. Inaccuracies, indeed. And the editors at the novel article? There's been a dozen edits to the article in almost four years - there are no active editors there. Even after bringing the issue to DRN almost a week ago, you have not yet been able to gather any further support; all in all, your position on the terms used is solely based on your own personal interpretation, that it is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is indeed not actively followed by many editors. Which is one reason I think it was the right thing to do to come here as a way of getting broader input. Again, please keep the personal snides to a minimum. I did not come here to garner support. I came here to resolve an issue which I think was resolved incorrectly. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I checked on your statement that the series itself states "based on", and I noticed that 3 seconds before the end, it indeed does say so. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

would that count as a source? if yes than i think this is settled if no.... well it is still 2 or 3 against one. i think that is consensus Clone commando sev (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as it is a primary source. A consensus is indeed very clear. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced a 3:1 consensus on a page that is hardly visited, and in view of sources that state otherwise, is enough of a consensus to remove a {{Disputed inline}} tag. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

One person that objects is not enough to include one. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

seems this dispute is solved then. sorry Debresser consensus is against you. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I know consensus is against me. That I stated from the beginning. That is not the question I asked here. I asked, if a 3:1 consensus is reason to remove a disputed template. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:WTRMT. The issue has been adequately addressed and the issue has been resolved, and there is consensus on the talk page (and here) as to how to address the flagged issue. More information is available at WTRMT, but the current situation is supported by a multitude of the reasons given to remove the maintenance tag. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

seems like my job here is done. this is settled. now it is up to you guys to remove the tag. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The tag was removed on 9 June server time. It seems this discussion can therefore now be closed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Clone commando sev A hell of a job you did... I already knew that three editors disagree with me. I didn't post here for you to tell me that. If you care at all, you can review the "How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?" subsection, and if you don't care, you should not have undertaken to "mediate" this dispute. This is a farce if ever I saw one. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, you asked if a 3:1 consensus is reason to remove a disputed template, you were given a link supporting the removal of the tag, the moderator saw fit to agree. Just because you disagree with the outcome, does not mean it was a poor job. This battleground behaviour from you is unacceptable. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, please cut the big words. The moderator did not address the questions I asked. That is a fact. I am well within my rights to express my dislike of the process, since no process to place here. That is not battlefield behavior, that is pointing out that this process has zero added value, apart from repeating the already known fact that the three of you disagree with me. Perhaps I was expecting too much from dispute resolution (wouldn't be the first time), or perhaps this moderator really is a bit too passive. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The point remains.. one person disagreeing is not enough to label something disputed.. otherwise every article would be littered with such tags. Spanneraol (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Kenney

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lasalleexplorer on 13:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Jim Kenney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lasalleexplorer (talk · contribs) Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Wallyfromdilbert has been undoing multiple changes to the Jim Kenney page. We are engaged in an edit war, where the Wallyfromdilbert is repeatedly changing content back to how they think it should be, even when they have seen that other editors disagree. Users are discussing the inclusion of a section on Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney's page about the 2020 George Floyd protests including his involvement in the removal of memorials/statues and the tear gas used on protestors on the Vine Street Expressway. Three controversial monuments are being removed, but user Wallyfromdilbert only wants to include a remark about *one* statue. Further, Wallyfromdilbert constantly reverts edits including Mayor Kenney's apology/involvement in tear gassing protesters during the aftermath of the George Floyd killing. Wallyfromdilbert contests that the original edits did not contain reliable sources. The Talk page says otherwise. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [13] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A third party should determine whether the proposed section fits within the guidelines of Biographies of living persons and includes the appropriate reliable sources. Summary of dispute by Wallyfromdilbert Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jim Kenney discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Stonehenge

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by M R G WIKI999 on 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved M R G WIKI999 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have tried to make several edits which are good faith edits changing Christian date formats the secular Common Era format but the same user keeps reverting them... I have tried opening a talk section, but he has ignored it and keeps reverting my edits. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stonehenge#Secular_date_format_or_Christian_format..._seeking_consensus_due_to_user_reverting_good_faith_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps ask the user to stop reverting my edits until there is time for discussions to take place in the talk page section I have set up regarding the issue? I don't really know because this is not something I'm familiar with. I always like a softly-softly kind of approach though, if that makes sense. Blindly undoing my edits and then me following suit is very childish of both of us (I know this, but I kind of feel like I'm being pushed around and that's making me act kind of silly)... Any help? Stonehenge discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Ingush people

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed 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. Filed by Deni Mataev on 13:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Deni Mataev (talk · contribs) Kisteti (talk · contribs) Sextus Caedicius (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an ongoing dispute over the number of Ingush people in the infobox. The numbers have been reverted several times to what they were before the edits of Kisteti, but he edits it back again to what he believes to be correct without first forming a consensus with others. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [14] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus. Summary of dispute by Kisteti Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sextus Caedicius Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ingush people discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment - @Deni Mataev: Can you please inform the other editors of this DRN request on their talk pages? Also, with regards to this comment: "A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus." Please be aware that DRN cannot provide this (nor can anyone else). We provide a sane format for discussion and mediate between parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer comment - I'll give this one more day before I close it. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2020 (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.

Tipu Sultan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Edithgoche on 15:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tipu Sultan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Edithgoche (talk · contribs)
• Irshadpp (talk · contribs)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs)
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

WP:DUE and possibly WP:CENSORED issues. Tipu's religious policy is discussed at lengths in the article's body. There is disagreement on how much of it should be included in the intro, and whether censorship is in place.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Yes, in the talkpage [15]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by explaining wikipedia policies to users.

Summary of dispute by EdithGoche

In the article's body, Tipu's religious policy is discussed in great detail, in over 3000 of the total 9000 words. If you look at the long intro, a mere one line is allotted for it, thus due weight is not given. I want due weight be given to the topic, taking a similar article Aurangzeb as an example. Edithgoche (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Irshadpp

There is a huge discussion over this issue, which involved by users @RegentsPark:, @Alivardi:, @Aman.kumar.goel:, @Abecedare: etc. Most of the users commented that, there is no expansion required in lead, which gave already picture both views hero vs religious tyrant.Here, @Edithgoche: removed the content In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However...... and added the details of other side. So the balancing of views were destroyed. I revert the mentioned edit, which was again changed by the same user. Now that edit reverted by another user. I do not understand why only me mentioned in his complaint.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan discussion

•  Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this dispute, if you accept. I will first be reviewing the discussion in the talk page. Feynstein (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Feynstein I accept your offer. I am new to DRN. Go through the talk page and tell me if I should invite the other 4 users. I only invited one active user. Edithgoche (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome for moderating between us. I have just noticed this now, kindly refer the talk page for other editors' opinion.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edithgoche: and @Irshadpp: Yes I would suggest that you invite the other editors, it can only help the discussions. And also, I opened this case, I think it is a valid DRN case. I will be posting my first statement, and setting things up as soon as I get on my PC (I'm on my phone now and it's not as efficient). Feynstein (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have invited all the editors who took part in the talk. Edithgoche (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - I would like to add a comment only as to what policies and guidelines are applicable. The filer says that there are WP:DUE and WP:CENSORED issues. The policy Wikipedia is not censored is usually misunderstood, and has nothing to do with questions of balance or due weight. However, this is an issue of due weight. The editors are requested to follow the instructions of the moderator to reach agreement on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the inputs. I will keep the discussion only applying WP:DUE. Edithgoche (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edithgoche: I won't be taking this discussion into a censoring issue as I don't think this is the case. Kindly try to be more careful when using this kind of language here, it could be perceived as a personal attack. I strongly suggest that everyone involved assume good faith. Feynstein (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Edithgoche (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

• I first want to thank you for using the DRN to help resolve this dispute. As for the discussion here, try to keep it clear and concise, and try to bring one issue at a time. The issues should be stated in a single question for clarity. Try to agree on which questions to address and in what order. Please discuss the content and avoid shooting the messenger. Please be aware of the the rules and refer to them if you are unsure. I would prefer it if you used the subsections I will be providing for your discussions. If it gets too much into a back a forth discussion please stop and wait for me to assess the current messages. I am not an expert in the field and I don't pretend to be one, so I will need your help for explanations on more particular concepts I might not be aware of. And finally, try to keep the relevant discussions here, it will make everyone's life easier until we can find a resolution. For now, can everyone involved write a short opening statement including any recent development. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Example statement. Feynstein (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be wrong to repeat the whole religious policy section in the lede rather than the summarization. Not all Indians criticize him, many Indians consider him their hero. Also, to state again what I said before on the article talk page, another question is that to what extent can we trust the sources about religious persecution? The section, "British accounts," talks about it: "Historians such as Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib, and Saletare, amongst others, argue that controversial stories of Tipu Sultan's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors (who were very much against Tipu Sultan's independence and harboured prejudice against the Sultan) such as Kirkpatrick and Mark Wilks, whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable and likely fabricated. A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks' account in particular cannot be trusted." I think, even if the lede is expanded, it must be kept neutral. Khestwol (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Request 1) Any reader who only reads the intro would be misled that the body doesn't contain the religious policy in detail. We need to expand the intro. Doesn't have to be an essay, I will settle with just 2 sentences (compromising from my previous 5 sentence edit), one for critical POV and another for praiseful POV. That's all I am asking.

Request 2) The names of the concerned communities involved must be mentioned, with links to the wiki pages that discuss the same. There are separate wiki pages on the captivity of Mangalorean Christians, Kodavas and Nairs. The reader must be able to get to those pages from the intro. Edithgoche (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: @Edithgoche: and @Khestwol: I think both your statements are very reasonable and I would let you carry on with this discussion in here and write my second statement later this week. What I write as suggestions is only a neutral opinion and serves only to keep the discussion going, you can disregard it completely if you both think it is wrong. I think that for historical accounts it is very difficult to assess the credibility of the authors. That's why WP:DUE exists actually. I also think that the two positive and negative sentences proposed by Edithgoche is a very reasonable request and attempt at a concensus resolution. As for the naming of the communities I think it would be removing the goal of the lede, which is a summary of the article at a quick glance. I think it would be better to try and concatenate the religious communities in a single word, like "some religious communities" or other summarizing phrasing. Feynstein (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure this is a candidate for dispute resolution. What we have here is one editor (Edithgoche) who has a preferred text that they want to insert in the lead of the article and is unwilling to listen to other editors. No other editor has supported this version of the text. In short, there is no dispute, but there is merely a recalcitrant editor. My suggestion to Edithgoche they go back to the article talk page and discuss the issue dispassionately without recourse to statements about censorship and due. I personally don't think the lead warrants anything greater than the "he has been criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons" (details are best left to the body) but ... --regentspark (comment) 21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Let's discuss the content. not contributor. The last para has a WP:POV issue. That Tipu was secular is a view shared by some scholars and sections. To present it as the view of the entire Indian subcontinent is POV. Other scholars/sections consider him a religious tyrant. This has to be changed. Below is the revised version of my previous edit. Suggestions are welcome.

Tipu is criticized by some historians for the destruction of churches and temples, and forced conversions of Mangalorean Catholics and Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. Others dispute the historicity of the claims and applaud him as tolerant for the appointment of Hindus in his administration and land grants to temples.

Thanks for the moderation Feynstein. My Request 2 was not about mentions of community names vs "some religious communities". Community names are already present in the current version - "Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore", and this is agreed by the other editors. The article can be improved by changing "Hindus of Malabar" to "Hindus of Malabar and Coorg" or "Nairs of Malabar and Kodavas of Coorg", whichever the editors agree on. As the article discusses both, I don't think there is a valid reason to mention Malabar and not Coorg.

Khestwol's concern that the claims of the critics are disputed by some historians is addressed. His other concern that some sections consider him a hero is also given due weight. Edithgoche (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Feynstein, I agree with RegentsPark regarding the talk page discussion. But the user who raise this issue here didn't enough support there. Current lead is

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However, he has been criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons.

If the word secular ruler is the center of our discussion, we can make it tolerant ruler. It is very clear from all citations that Tipu was tolerant with all except rebels. If he was not tolerant to other religions, how there were many top admin staffs of him from Hindu religion. In light of citations, we may see that all communities fell in repression of Tipu were rebellious to Tipu's administration (Political). In my opinion, the current lead is sufficient to the article.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the inputs Irshadpp. I think we are making progress in terms of understanding the positions of others. My concern is not with Tipu being presented as a secular or tolerant ruler. My concern is that this POV is being presented as the unanimous view of the entire "post-colonial Indian Subcontinent", which is not the case. Instead we can write, "Some historians applaud him for being secular/tolerant..", as present in my revised version above. Edithgoche (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Edithgoche, if the first part (post-colonial India) is a problem, perhaps we could go with: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons That, imo, equally balances both views.--regentspark (comment) 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. Khestwol (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• RegentsPark's version looks good and is an improvement over that currently in the article. I have some suggestions to improve it more.

1) by altering the term repression. The sources use the terms forced conversions and persecutions liberally. I don't see the term repression used anywhere in the four articles [16] [17] [18] [19]. Let's use the term that the critical sources themselves use, to present their view more accurately. Also imo repression does not convey the essence of the criticism as it has multiple interpretations.

2) Hindus of Malabar can be changed to Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. The article discusses both.

3) for political reasons can be removed to maintain WP:DUE. This is the critical view, "According to historian Alan Machado Prabhu, Tipu's reasons for the captivity were primarily religious. He found the social customs of the Christians distasteful, such as their fondness for pork and the social acceptance of alcohol.". This is the non-critical view, "Contemporary scholars like Surendranath Sen, Mohibbul Hasan, N. K. Sinha, and B. Sheik Ali, who have analysed Tipu's religious policies on Christians, conclude that he was not a religious bigot. They argue that forcible conversions to Islam were done purely for political, not religious reasons.. as a punishment for Christians who supported the British.". We see that Political reasons is cited in defense of Tipu. Including it in the second statement dilutes the criticism, effectively giving the critical view one-fourth weight in the whole para.

Here is the improvement I propose,

In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized as a religious bigot for the persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. Edithgoche (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, politics was the main reason so I would suggest mentioning this word first, i.e. "...for both political and religious reasons." Otherwise, RegentsPark's wording is perfect. Khestwol (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• That politics was the main reason represents one POV, the secular view. That religion was the main reason is another POV, the critical view. If we necessarily have to include the reasons, each of the reasons must be placed duly in their own statement, without mixing them up and confusing the readers. My opinion is that reasons are best left to the body and not the intro. Edithgoche (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a good move by Regentspark, Agreed with his opinion. No altering required as this is a balanced sentence. In proposal of Edithgoche word religious bigot and emission of reasons behind his actions (Political & religious) will make the statement biased. To the proposal of Regentspark, addition of Coorgs may be acceptable to all.--Irshadpp (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see "religious bigot" as being neutrally stated. We could replace "repression" with "persecution" though. On reading the stuff in the body (which, if I may add, is full of poorly sourced material and desperately needs to be cleaned up), we need to keep "political" in. My suggestion: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons. I suppose Coorg can be added in but it is probably overkill. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here we have two statements for the two views - secular view in the first statement and critical view in the next statement. That Tipu did it for reasons mainly political or purely political is a secular view, not a critical view, used in defense of Tipu by historians like Hasan to show he was not a religious bigot. If we necessarily want to include political reasons, I am open to including it, but we have to do it in the secular statement. It is one thing to say Tipu did it for political reasons, which is correct and represents secular view, and a totally different thing to say, Tipu is criticized for the persecution of .. for both religious and political reasons, which is wrong and represents neither view accurately. It mixes up secular and critical views and presents them as a critical view overall, thus misrepresenting the criticism. I suggest we omit the reasons totally. Stating the reasons in the intro amounts to going into details, which is meant for the body. Most editors just want a short summary of the religious policy, is what the feeling I am getting from the beginning of the discussion.

Since we are having the description secular ruler in the first statement I looked for a similar description for the second statement - religious tyrant, religious bigot, religious fanatic, villain. All these terms are used for the critical view in the sources. "However, the image of Tipu in the memoirs of the people of Coorg, Malabar and South Kanara conforms more to the one presented by Kirkpatrick and Wilks, one of a bitter religious bigot and a ferocious conquistadore." [20]. In the discussions I see other editors using the term religious tyrant when describing the critical view. This term is fine as well. Here is what is suggest, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore.. Edithgoche (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Edithgoche but tyrant, bigot are not acceptable. If you want to drop religious and political reasons, that's fair. But words like tyrant are too loaded to be used here. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I felt the term secular was loaded and wanted it altered, but then I could find a source using this word, now I support keeping it in the interests of objectivity. Most (maybe all) critical sources I read here call him a religious tyrant (or other synonyms). I think we have to keep our personal feelings and interpretations aside and use the words that the sources use, without judging if they're loaded or not. That he was a religious tyrant is the fundamental criticism against Tipu. Without that charge, there is no criticism at all. I suggest we keep it to present the sources objectively. In the talk you said, The original text succinctly summarized the content in the body (hero vs religious tyrant). I thought you would be open to using tyrant instead of bigot. Edithgoche (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I read the section again and perhaps we can go with In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. I changed criticized to viewed because that may be the more accurate summary word. But, criticized is fine too if that is preferred. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your version looks good and balanced. I suggest a minor change. We can go either with applauded and criticized for the first and second statements, or considered and viewed, to use similar wording when describing both POVs. I'd say considered and viewed is more accurate wording, but the former is fine too. Edithgoche (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "applauded" is an odd choice of word. So, what we have is: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. @Irshadpp and Khestwol:, could you comment here.--regentspark (comment) 18:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this version. Edithgoche (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we are using a word religious tyrant, I suggest the removal of the details of it such for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, as there is no details shown for his tolerant attitude to his own Hindu subjects and who were allied with him like Hindu Raja of Cochin. religious tyrant v/s secular ruler, No need details of both.--Irshadpp (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have some observations regarding this. 1) His fight against British colonialism is described in detail in the above paras. Whereas for the critical view, we are not alloting a separate para, the least we can do is mention these details in one sentence here. 2) The body discusses the persecutions critically in about 2500 words (let's say we trim it down to half). Just giving it two words can seriously compromise WP:DUE. 3) I wanted to add more details like his land grants to temples and appoint of hindu officers to the secular view, and destruction of churches and temples and forced conversions to the critical view. I think the above version by RegentsPark is a good compromise between too much detail and maintaining WP:DUE Edithgoche (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Hello again, I am sorry I didn't have time to make my second statement yet, don't worry it is still coming. My week turned into utter chaos at work... it was pretty unexpected. I will try to write it tonight. Sorry. Feynstein (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

• Hello editors. I am sorry if my second statement took so long, I had a very rough week at work and was very tired every time I got back home. As you might know I am a nuclear physicist working in industrial radiography and we had a surprise inspection from the nuclear safety commission with 2 days notice. So we had to go through all our documentation and all our blueprints for shielding and make sure everything was in order, that we did not forget anything. We passed with flying color, but it is pretty exhausting hahaha.
• As for the subject matter itself, I agree that non-neutral words like "bigot" should not be used unless it is a quote from a text. But in order for you to get the right information, I collected a few wikipedia reference pages for consultation. WP:RNPOV, MOS:WTW and WP:ATT. Secular is a perfectly acceptable work and is neutral. Here is the definition: "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
• And to conclude, I think that RegentsPark brought a reasonable compromise and I suggest the two other involved editors, namely Edithgoche and Khestwol, start working on a good final phrasing for the compromise. I suggest that for now the discussion should focus exclusively on this compromise, as it is our best bet at a resolution. I also suggest that the editors present their version of the phrasing in the sections below in the same form as I will be formatting them.Feynstein (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omg I almost forgot Irshadpp sorry :P. Good editing everyone :-) Feynstein (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting example

• "Candidate sentence"
  • Approve Explanation by original poster of the sentence
  • Disapprove Explanation for disapproval
• "Next sentences until all parties agree on a final version"
  • Approve or Disapprove etc, etc. Feynstein (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However, he is also criticized for his repression, for both political and religious reasons, against Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, and for his clamping down on Mappila Muslims. Khestwol (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove. Reasons same as discussed above. 1) First statement being presented as the view of the entire subcontinent, which is not really the case. 2) The term repression is not sourced, persecution is. 3) reasons are best left to the body 4) There is no source which 'criticizes' the clamping down on Mappila muslims. Edithgoche (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with RegentsPark's latest version, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. Edithgoche (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I mentioned above, if we are using the word religious tyrant, I suggest the removal of the details of it such for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, as there is no details shown for his tolerant attitude to his own Hindu subjects and who were allied with him like Hindu Raja of Cochin etc. religious tyrant v/s secular ruler, No need details of both. Otherwise we may tell like this Tipu was criticized for his persecution towards Hindu rebels of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore--Irshadpp (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove I have to disagree with the word 'rebel'. That his actions were motivated by the rebel nature of the communities is the secular view. It cannot be included in the critical view. Edithgoche (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What Edithgoche means by secular view and critical view. Here our references are historical, not secular or critical. We have two streams on historians regarding religious attitude of Tipu Sultan. I would suggest to split fighting to British and religious policy separate.

1. In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a brave ruler who fought against British colonialism. His religious tolerance was documented by many historians through his activities such as appointing Hindu Officers in key administrative positions and land grants and endowments to Hindu temples. On other side, Tipu criticized as a religious tyrant for his persecution towards Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious. Or, same suggested by Regentspark, but without word religious tyrant.
2. In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore--Irshadpp (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove Yes, we present historical references. But two opposing POVs exist regarding the same, which I call secular vs critical to help illustrate my points better. You can call them by any other names.

The first two sentences are merely POV, but they are being presented as the truth. Also, I don't see any source for brave ruler.

The terms bigot, tyrant, fanatic, villain are used in the sources. There is no rationale to remove tyrant. Edithgoche (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What I am proposing is, if we are using word religious tyrant, then no need details of accused atrocities. The word itself enough to balance secular ruler. If we add the details, we must add for both views like below.

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a ruler who fought against British colonialism. His religious tolerance was documented by many historians through his activities such as appointing Hindu Officers in key administrative positions and land grants and endowments to Hindu temples. On other side, Tipu viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution towards Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious.

brave-omitted.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove Same reasons stated above. First two sentences are POV, being presented as truth. If details are to be included we can use a modified version of my original proposal which presents POVs as POV and not as truth. Tipu is viewed as a religious tyrant by some sections for the destruction of churches and temples, and forced conversions of Mangalorean Catholics and Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. Others consider him a secular ruler for the appointment of Hindus in his administration and grants to temples and that his treatment of rebels were for political reasons. Edithgoche (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here we are submitting both POVs, Tolerant & Tyrant. Both are POVs, being presented as truth. The main point is both are POVs not mine or yours, but historians. While British writers on that age painted Tipu as religious tyrant or bigot, modern world historians suspect the authenticity of this records. They had research over this and found British interest to paint him with these labels. While Tipu was religious tolerant with His Hindu subjects and Hindu-Christian allies like Cochin, France etc., his treatments to rebels of Malabar, Coorg and Mangalore were the basis of criticizing as Religious tyrant....... --Irshadpp (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I got caught up in RL issues! I'm ok with either the ...secular... ...religious tyrant... (acceptable to Edithgoche) or the ...secular... ...persecution of... (acceptable to Irshadpp) versions (with a slight preference for the latter). But, the longer detailed version, as well as the Khestwol version at the top of the section, are too much for the lead. It looks like we have an impasse here. @Feynstein:, any suggestions on how to resolve this impasse?--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Irshadpp: His religious tolerance was documented by many historians. This is a POV statement. It presents him as tolerant, a POV disputed by others. Whether he is presented as secular or tyrant it must be accompanied by qualifiers clearly indicating that it's a POV, such as Some historians consider him tolerant. Look at the phrase, which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious How is it that when he is presented as tolerant, historians aren't mentioned to be debating, which they are, but when criticized, historians are debating? The entire para has POV issues. Also, this para is bigger than the detailed version I proposed above. Since our goal is to keep intro short, I suggest we go with regentspark's latest version, which is short and acceptable for me. Edithgoche (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have only one objection with Regentspark's latest version, which is Religious tyrant + Details of atrocities to the rebels (Not hindu, christian or muslim). Either details or the word religious tyrant to be omitted.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The last para gives two POVs, each disputed by the other, and all the above paras give undisputed facts. So we can write this fact in a para above, This fact is not disputed as even secular POV scholars agree to this. Contemporary scholars like Surendranath Sen, Mohibbul Hasan, N. K. Sinha, and B. Sheik Ali, who have analysed Tipu's religious policies on Christians, conclude that he was not a religious bigot. They argue that forcible conversions to Islam were done purely for political, not religious reasons.. as a punishment for Christians who supported the British. The dispute only lies in two things 1) whether the numbers are exaggerated? 2) political or religious reasons?. These seem to be significant events and deserve a mention.

And in the last para describing his legacy we can present the two POVs, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a secular ruler by some and religious tyrant by others. Edithgoche (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• What about facts about his tolerant attitude to his subjects and allies. If you are adding details, both side details to be there.--Irshadpp (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We could give both details like this, Tipu's religious policy is controversial. He is both considered to be a secular ruler for his grants to temples and appointment of Hindus in his administration, as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. I think this gives due weight to both views. I am omitting fight against British as it is given in above paras. This para gives POVs only about his religious policy. Edithgoche (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Hi everyone! There is no obligation, but can you please try to use the formatting I proposed? There seems to be valid consensus propositions mixed in the comments. For clarity, could someone resume the working phrasing?
• Like that? Feynstein (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

• The debate seems to be going well. Since it is getting a bit crammed up there with all the replies and such, I suggest you continue your discussion down here with concise statements. I also want to weigh in regarding the usage of wording like Tyrant and such. If these words are included, they must be within quotation marks. As per WP:NPOV it is essential that the wording of the encyclopedia itself stays neutral. So those words must come from the litterature, or from historical reports and such. I would also like for the editors to start writing candidate sentences and focus on the final goal of getting a concensus. Thank you! Feynstein (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The word tyrant is sourced. Similar words like bigot, villain and fanatic are used in the critical sources. We are merely presenting what the sources say. I don't think it has be within quotation marks, when we are not doing the same for the word secular which represents the other POV. Edithgoche (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Edithgoche: I know those words are sourced, but they are clearly pejorative. And very much more than secular, which only means no link to religion. What I only want to say is be mindful of the wording and make sure it is not the encyclopedia that uses these words, but the sources themselves. Feynstein (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• Tipu's religious policy is still controversial among historians. He is both considered to be a secular ruler for his generous attitude towards his subjects and allies, grants to temples and appointment of Hindus in his top administration, as well as viewed as a "religious tyrant" for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore.

This is a small variation of latest proposal of Edithgoche. According to Feynstein, the word religious tyrant inside quotation marks. The changes of mine is in bold letters here only for review--Irshadpp (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove. 1) still is not required 2) WP:UNDUE Secular POV is given more weight than critical POV. If you read the body more details is given for critical POV. There is a single line mentioning the grants to temples and appointment of Hindus, including it here is already WP:UNDUE but I am okay with a short summary. Adding more details on top of it is pushing it a bit far. 3) Unsourced claims. generous attitude, top administration 4) Putting religious tyrant in quotes is unwarranted. We are not writing it in encyclopedia's voice, we are writing it in the voice of the sources. So no need for quotes.

Either we go with Tipu's religious policy is controversial. He is both considered to be a secular ruler for his grants to temples and appointment of Hindus in his administration, as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore., which is my version and balances both views equally imo. Or we go with Regentspark's version that is also acceptable to me, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. Edithgoche (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Edward Colston

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Michael F 1967 on 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Edward Colston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michael F 1967 (talk · contribs) Cassianto (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An RFC was raised regarding the wording of the first paragraph. The matter has not been resolved, but the text of the first paragraph has nevertheless been changed. I feel that the text should be reverted to the form it had at the time the RFC was raised. Discussion on the talk page seemed to suggest that was the correct approach. I made the change, and got reverted apparently for being troublesome. My query is about that particular change only. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Edward_Colston,User_talk:Michael_F_1967,User talk:Slatersteven,User talk:Cassianto How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Rule on whether the first paragraph should be reverted to the form it had when the RFC was opened. Summary of dispute by Cassianto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Slatersteven Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hard one, the RFC is just about the inclusion of one word, not the rest of the text. As such it is debatable if the rest of the lede has to remain static during the RFC. My personal opinion is that best practice says yes, but its not a rule (but I may be wrong). The problem here is that the filers initial edit today [[21]] did not reset it to that version, and they only suggested it after much hassle and a warning for edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC) Edward Colston discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

– New discussion.

Filed by Jamez42 on 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs)
• Cmonghost (talk · contribs)
• Jogarz1921 (talk · contribs)
• ReyHahn (talk · contribs)
• Jamez42 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a long lasting disagreement in the article regarding the portrayal of Venezuela in the article, if any: whether its section should be split or merged, and which content should it include.

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

Discussion in the article throughout several months:

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020

Related discussions in main article:

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#RFC on Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#Venezuela 2

Admin El C has advised the DRN if the last discussion became stale.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Helping to decide if the section should be split or merged, and which content should be included.

Summary of dispute by David Tornheim

This DR has serious process issues, in terms of cherry-picked participants and failure to notify at the pages affected.

Cmonghost's analysis is on point, except I think the scope is straightforward: Regime change is what the WP:RS says it is. If the WP:RS says it is "regime change", then it is regime change.[22]

Notrium made some valid points: [23][24].

Jamez42 has already been sanctioned and restricted (0RR/1RR) for poor behavior at the regime change articles, where he repeatedly deleted well-sourced content about U.S. involvement in Venezuela when he didn't get his way.

The previously discussed unnecessary and unpopular "accusations" section is Jamez42's creation, and he can't seem to accept the fact that there is little support of it.

ReyHahn said In the case of Venezuela the section included mostly accusations by Maduro administration itself.

That's because Jamez42 added almost all of it: [25], [26], [27].

The addition of extensive content of unsubstantiated accusations and their political expedience muddies the water. I both discussed trimming and tried to delete some of it, but got reverted.

I believe that the WP:RS that discusses and/or takes seriously the U.S.'s involvement in regime change is what we need, and mention of accusations should be fairly minor as discussed in that section.

Ultimately, this dispute was created by Jamez42, and the best way to handle it IMHO is for Jamez42 to take a breather from Venezuela, Guaido and Maduro related articles. Regardless, I will do my part to work collaboratively with him.

I am happy to work on an RfC(s) about this to get more non-involved editors to comment once the WP:FRS is working. Such RfC(s) should be prepared and discussed on article's talk page, not in this limited forum of editors cherry-picked by Jamez42. If some non-involved editor(s) like Notrium or Robert McClenon [28] want to help with that, I would welcome it. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: 09:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Robert McClenon's request Will each editor please make a brief statement about what they want to be in the RFC? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.: I have created the below section for my proposed potential RfC questions. I will fill it in shortly. If preferred, I can limit to one proposed question.

As you can see from above, I prefer to provide readers who want to dig deeper with links to previous discussions. I propose to do that, while recognizing the importance of neutrality in RfCs (WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:WRFC). If such links are unhelpful or need to be stated in a different form, please let me know.

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your attention to this. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DT's Proposed RfC

This RfC relates to these two articles:

• United States involvement in regime change
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Questions:

1. Should Venezuela be the only country in the above two articles to be listed under a separate section called "Accusations" as seen in this version?
2. Should the accusations added by these, three, edits be included, not included, or trimmed from the article, etc.?

• Previous discussions: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33],[34]

End of Proposal by --David Tornheim (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I had considered adding questions about the scope of these two articles, but I believe this would muddy the water. This is a content dispute only related to U.S. involvement in Venezuela, and it should not spill over and undermine the stable content of the long-established scope defined by the WP:LEDE of the United States involvement in regime change article. Nor should it undermine the stable portions describing U.S. meddling in other countries' governments. I have noticed some editors are heavily and sometimes almost exclusively focused on Venezuela content. I think it would be a disservice to Wikipedia to allow their desire to have specific things said (or not said) about Venezuela weaken the content of other subjects they do not care about. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cmonghost

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

In my view there are three main issues with Venezuela content in this article. The first is that Jamez42's proposed division into two sections, "history" and "accusations", is arbitrary and appears to mostly reflect their personal opinions about which allegations are credible and which are not. Instead, we should agree on content to include in a single section, with appropriate context from reliable sources for each point. There is also no precedent on the page for splitting sections in this way, and it leaves Venezuela as the only subsection in the "Accusations" section, which is not good article structure. The second is that there is no agreement between editors about what constitutes "involvement in regime change". For instance, reliable sources do not dispute the fact that the U.S. (through the National Endowment for Democracy) funded organizations involved in the 2002 coup (source), some editors seem to believe that this does not constitute involvement in regime change (though such editors have been vague about how they would define the term). Finally, there is a tendency on any articles related to current Venezuelan politics to paste in an extremely long paragraph about how Maduro has committed election fraud, the crisis is his fault, etc.; regardless of whether this stock paragraph is accurate, it is not directly related to the actual subject of the article, and appears to serve mostly as editors' justification for US regime change efforts. This content should not be included on this page. In general, the text has an explicitly anti-Maduro framing, e.g., the only discussion of U.S. sanctions, which are imposed for the explicit purpose of regime change, is that Maduro exploited them to "bump up his approval ratings" (which is not even directly supported by the source cited). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jogarz1921

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

I don't think the inclusion of Venezuelan event since in the article should be particularly controversial. Since early 2019, US and the majority of Latin American nations have openly stated, numerous times, that they want to see Maduro and his government go. Regime change in Venezuela is a public effort by numerous countries to remove the authoritarian regime, not a conspiracy theory. I think the key problem here is the inclusion of pre-2019 events. The evidence that the US was actively attempting regime change during this period is scant at best and comes mostly from unreliable sources. Maduro may claim that the collapse of his country's economy was a US-engineered effort at regime change, but there's simply no good evidence that this is the case. Rather, all available evidence shows that the mid-2010s economic collapse was the result of failed economic policy. Until very recently, US policy towards Venezuela was predominantly disinterest. I don't think the baseless deflections of Maduro and Chavez have the same notoriety as actual, confirmed US regime change efforts. I am also concerned that including such accusations alongside well-verified historical events will create a false equivalence between the two. As such, I believe pre-2019 accusations should not be included on the page.Jogarz1921 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ReyHahn

The problem is related to a larger issue that is part of United States involvement in regime change (USiirg). There is no clear consensus yet on what is an involvement in regime change. USiirg and USiirg in Latin America seem to be articles to compile all foreign actions and plans of United States without critical view on them or context, especially if it is in the news. Users are encouraged to add all informations they find on US and x country, sometimes in a "wrong deeds" manner. US authorities position on the subject and their international position of other countries involved is often avoided. On the other hand, "x" position is always important in these articles, independent of evidence. Sometimes opinion articles are used because they are authored by an "expert" (but what's an expert in "involvement in regime change"?). In the case of Venezuela the section included mostly accusations by Maduro administration itself. Maduro administration frequently accuses all problems in Venezuela on foreign causes (US, Europe, Israel, Colombia, Brazil,etc). Some users seem to want Venezuela in the article either without the context or with accusations by Maduro administration without further evidence. Jamez42 created an accusation section for this cause, that went on for some months with a POV template, but as soon a the POV template was considered deprecated and was removed (as discussion stopped during those months), the content was merged back to the main section, a move that was asked to be reverted as it was done without previous announcement (the content could have also been split between accusations and main, but this was not the case either). Briefly: involvement in regime change is ill defined, context is discouraged (by some users), accusations are taken as facts and separating sections for accusations apparently is seen as arbitrary. Under these conditions, the article seems to be pushed for anti-US bias.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC by Jamez42

This RfC relates to these two articles:

• United States involvement in regime change
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Questions

1. Should content about Venezuela be included in the article?
2. Should its content be merged or split into an "Accusations" section?
3. Should content about the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt be included in the article?
4. Should content regarding official statements between 2002 and 2020 be included in the article?
5. Should content about the Venezuelan presidential crisis be included in the article?

Previous discussions

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Unnecessary "accusations" section
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#RFC on Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#Venezuela 2

• Note: Questions 3, 4 and 5 are dependent on the second one, which is about the scope of the section, just like all of them are dependent on the first question, which is the inclusion of the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - User:David Tornheim appears to have requested assistance with a Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in that regard. I am alternatively willing to moderate, but David Tornheim appears to be making a reasonable request that we use an RFC rather than facilitated discussion.

First statement by Volunteer

Will each editor please make a brief statement about what they want to be in the RFC? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First statements by Editors

Before all else, I would like to thank @Robert McClenon: for volunteering and helping with the current dispute.

My experience with RfCs regarding Venezuela is that, given its polarizing nature, it effectively turns into a poll. Judging from the article's talk page and statements here, everyone appears to be unsatisfied by the current version, and issuing a ingles binary yes or no question (eg: Should the section be merged or split) risks leaving concerns unanswered, including about policies of verifiability and neutrality. The RfC should discuss which will be the content, but I'm not aware if the RfC format allows this and I would like to be more familiar with this; I hope that it is the case. Robert, do you have knowledge about RfCs about similarly controversial topics, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict? Perhaps we could learn from them to seek the best outcome.

I am also very disheartened to see that David Tornheim decided to cast aspersions against me for starting this request. This venue was recommended by the very admin that placed the restrictions; seeking alternative ways to discuss and seek consensus should not be a reason for reprehension, even less to suggest that an editor should stop editing in the topic. David was the user that restarted the issue, despite not having consensus among the editors involved. This dispute is long lasting as extensive discussions on the issue show, and to say that I'm the one that "created" it is an oversimplification to say the least. If a RfC is started it's important to uphold civility, precisely to ensure collaborative discussion, which I'm looking forward.

I pinged essentially all of the editors involved in the most recent discussion (Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020) and I don't have any problem with inviting uninvolved editors; I only ask for the issues mentioned above to be considered. I will probably make a summary in the article's talk page hoping to make the procedure easier. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment about RfC Since this thread has been stale for over a week, I'll make an additional comment. Despite the best intentions, DT's RfC fails the neutrality required of RfCs (WP:RFCNEUTRAL), namely in the phrasing of its first question and for targeting three specific edits in the second one, while not addressing the concerns raised in the discussions by other editors. I have tried to cover these issues in my proposal, regarding both the scope and the content, although I worry about the length of the RfC, another problem with this mecanism. In any case, I'm looking forward to improve and I'm all ears to any suggestion. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

United States

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 91.110.211.44 on 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) Kaldari (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The photograph for Paul Laurence is exactly the same as the Google search image for Jupiter Hammon via Wikipedia. Please update this information by adding an image of Jupiter Hammon to the actual Wiki page? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? N/A How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As history is not widely taught via the education system, it is imperative to add as much information/images to the article. The internet itself can be very misleading. Summary of dispute by cyberpower678 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kaldari Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. United States discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Peace Myanmar Group

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Erateam8 on 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Peace Myanmar Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hintha (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are a number of issues that need to be resolved: 1. The company was founded by U Tun Linn and not, as accused/reported erroneously in a number of sources, Yang Mao-Liang. There is not one single citation that proves this drug dealer has any interest whatsoever in PMG. 2. The company was investigated and not found guilty. In my last set of edits I didn't remove any of the original content but added context so that the article wouldn't be intentionally slanderous. 3. One citation (#5) links to a 404 Error page and this is especially important because it's a citation in regard to an incredibly damaging and false statement around laundering drug money - there is absolutely not a single citation or shred of evidence to support this either. 4. Overall - all the scholarly "citations" used in this article are links to tier-2/tier-3 media with no other citation or evidence to support the claims. 5. The summary is they have the founder wrong (I can supply direct evidence of who founded the company from the Myanmar directorate of investment website and scans), they also have the MD hyperlinked wrongly and spelled wrongly (again they wouldn't let me change that either), they have a false and damaging accusation with a citation that is fake/links to a dead page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I originally made factual changes to the article - but then the user kept restoring the false/unsubstantiated content. So to compromise I tried to just add additional information from THEIR OWN SOURCES into the article so that people wouldn't be intentionally misled when reading - but apparently that is not acceptable because the user restored back to their version (which, again, the only changes I made were to include exact information from their own sources) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like to write the accurate company profile and information in depth and would happily accept any edits or additional sections such as "controversy" or whatever as long as the information is properly cited and not only referencing articles in largely unknown media. Summary of dispute by Hintha Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Peace Myanmar Group discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

African Descendants of Slavery

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Truthsayer21 on 03:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 African Descendants of Slavery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Truthsayer21 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview My movement #ados American Descendants of Slavery created the national reparations discussion the Person that created the page about my movement used this wiki page as a smear. Cherry picking peripheral points while omitting major points explaining the movement. First they have a random tweet from Ann Coulter on our about us and won’t remove it. By what right is Ann Coulter in our page because this editor decided a single Tweet not even addressing the founders is suppose to be on our about page? A tweet where Coulter told us to change our name from ados is not proper in any way. While Cornell West was a guest speaker at our conference and Marianne Williamson who brought it to the presidential debate stage was also a guest and informed by me and our movement. https://www.inquirer.com/news/marianne-williamson-reparations-ados-american-descenants-slavery-20190731.html This has been nonsense as a process and asking this guy to change it isn’t going to work. In addition I wrote for left wing economic think tankequality.org for several years but it was directly omitted to paint us as right wing. https://inequality.org/authors/antonio-moore/ And they have this reference of my cofounder with a Trump hat as if she wears it daily or even regularly on her bi weekly show that has run for years informing Blacks about liberal politics. No mention of her monthly book clubs or weekly liberal news letter.In fact they have omitted that she was a DNC staffer and side to Democratic Congresseoman Barbara Boxer. This page should really be deleted or entirely changed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Descendants_of_Slavery#Ann_Coulter_should_not_be_on_this_page_as_part_of_a_description How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By asking for a rewrite of this page with proper facts. Removal of any mention of Ann Coulter or Trump hats. And a in-depth about us written on the movement Of ADOS African Descendants of Slavery discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.

Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 49.180.128.47 on 04:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Faizhaider (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute is about the removal of this content. I oppose its removal while another editor supports the removal. We have tried resolving the issue on the talk page here, to no avail. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam#'Usuli versus Akhbari' section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I’d think a neutral, outside arbiter can help give an unbiased, experienced opinion to help resolve the dispute. Summary of dispute by Faizhaider The allegation on me is severely incorrect and is based on incorrect facts. The party reporting me, ie IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx have been involved in edit-warring on the page for long. Despite multiple pleadings for engagement on talk-page they didn't did it. They went to talk-page only when the page was semi-protected. The discussion on talk page (which was initiated by me) is not concluded yet, but the IPs seem to be in some sort of hurry and have reported me here. Interestingly these IPs have been involved in disruptive-editing for at least 5 years (I didn't investigated before that) and have had conflict with many users like, ParthikS8, Snowsky Mountain, FreeatlastChitchat, ԱշոտՏՆՂ, Jim1138, Rsrikanth05, FoCuSandLeArN, CatcherStorm, pushing the page into semi-protection multiple times. I myself have been involved on page for at least 10 years and have been mostly bold & assuming good faith in my fight against disruptive editing.--Fztcs 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Does User:Faizhaider want to engage in moderated discussion with the unregistered editor? If so, I am willing to moderate. Otherwise I will tell them to discuss on the article talk page (although they are implying that the unregistered editor doesn't discuss). Will each editor please make a one-or-two-sentence statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC) @ Robert McClenon, yes I would be more than happy to discuss under your guidance. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: My apologies, I missed your address to me due to the typo in my username; Anyways, it'll be great if you moderate, but I'll prefer to have the discussion on article's talk-page, as, a discussion is already underway there. You can start it by reviewing the discussion "'Usuli versus Akhbari' section" @ Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Thanks.--Fztcs 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Discuss at Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2020 (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.

Roman Retzbach

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by YvesMe on 08:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC).

Closed 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 Roman Retzbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved YvesMe (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'll listed 5 non-fiction books from another publishing house and want to stop deletion. Thanks! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YvesMe/Roman_Retzbach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Retzbach How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Give more time to do corrections and find a co-editor. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Retzbach#Roman_Retzbach Roman Retzbach discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. 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.