| Revision as of 18:58, 29 July 2020 editApplebutter221 (talk | contribs)190 edits →Swaminarayan Sampradaya← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:24, 29 July 2020 edit undoApplebutter221 (talk | contribs)190 edits →Swaminarayan Sampradaya: Follow ipNext edit → | ||
| Line 688: | Line 688: | ||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | ||
| ==== Summary of dispute by |
==== Summary of dispute by Applebutter221 ==== | ||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to ] and related articles. My theory is that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials, a sect that was disbarred and excommunicated from the parent group. The founder made up accusations to get followers to worship him and formally left the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Evidence is below: | |||
| <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#WP:OR,_Recent_Lead_Paragraph_Edits (Refusal to let leaders know that the BAPS founder left the parent group to start his own thing. They are hell bent on trying to convince readers their version of their beliefs are right and refuse to state with FOUR verbatim sources they their founder left which makes their founder look bad as it is in the scripture of the Swaminarayan Sampraday to never fight with his relatives.) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Vachanamrut (Constant mention of Akshar-Purushottam Darshan which is cherry picked out of a 600 page book and has establishment when the Swaminarayan Sampraday was created to when the founder died) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Pramukh_Swami_Sexual_Abuse (Same group of users removing allegations of sexual abuse of a high profile incident within BAPS with Pramukh Swami) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Original_Research (fighting tooth and nail to slant the article towards baps and sources are skewed toward pushing an agenda) | |||
| *https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Morari_Bapu#Removal_of_Sarcastic_Dig_at_Swaminarayan (Look how the support each other and drag out battles for months and then ultimately remove anything that appears to be critical even though it has encyclopedic value and plentiful sources. This strategy deters users from editing and they control the narrative.) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ==== Summary of dispute by TheNDNman224 ==== | ==== Summary of dispute by TheNDNman224 ==== | ||
Revision as of 19:24, 29 July 2020
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Autism | In Progress | Oolong (t) | 22 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 23 hours | Markworthen (t) | 7 hours |
| Imran Khan | New | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 16 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 20 hours | WikiEnthusiast1001 (t) | 4 days, 11 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 11 days, 8 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 5 days, 13 hours | Abo Yemen (t) | 5 days, 13 hours |
| Habte Giyorgis Dinagde | New | Jpduke (t) | 6 days, | None | n/a | Jpduke (t) | 6 days, |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | New | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | None | n/a | 188.4.120.7#top (t) | 2 days, 2 hours |
| Climate change denial | New | Skibidiohiorizz123 (t) | 5 hours | None | n/a | Skibidiohiorizz123 (t) | 5 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 23:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Current disputes
War of 1812
– New discussion.
Filed by Deathlibrarian on 12:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Deathlibrarian (talk · contribs)
- Elinruby (talk · contribs)
- Davide King (talk · contribs)
- Ykraps (talk · contribs)
- The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is an ongoing discussion about the results of the war of 1812, and how those results are shown in the results field, in the infobox. The article notes there is a dispute among historians as to who won the war of 1812, with some historians(Majority) saying it was a stalemate/draw, but others(a significant minority) say that Britain/Canada won. The viewpoint on who won differs between the two countries, with Canadians generally believing they won and the United States popularly say it was a stalemate/draw. I have proposed that for NPOV reasons, the result section in the infobox should reflect both views. The point was previously agreed to and consensus was that both viewpoints should be reflected in the infobox, as that would reflect what the article says - that discussion is here: ]. This was changed later by a sole editor without consensus or discussion.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
] ]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Both myself and Davide King have debated this and while we agree on somethings, we cannot agree on others, and have both agreed that a third party should look at the issue.
Summary of dispute by Elinruby
I am "involved" to the extent that I have been doing a third-party edit on the article, which has suffered from copyvios from old texts with archaic language and complete dismissal of any but cherry-picked texts. In my opinion the entire infobox should probably be deleted rather than have editors spend another decade shoe-horning in complex information. But. If the article must have an infobox, and apparently it must, all of the issues with balance and weight need to be resolved. Adding the defeat of Tecumseh helps. Adding that Washington and York were put to the torch also helps. I would like to see a reference for status quo ante bellum and a clarification that this applied specifically to the border between the United States and Upper and Lower Canada, since many tribes were displaced in the aftermath of this war. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Davide King
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I am not going to waste my time repeating obvious things. Just read this summary (fixed typo here).--Davide King (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
By the way, The Four Deuces, Ironic Luck, Red Rock Canyon, Rjensen, Shakescene, Tirronan and perhaps others should have been added too as they were all involved in some way. Why are they not included or mentioned at all?--Davide King (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- (1) I looked at who was posting on the specific thread, it was mainly you and I, and it was you and I who both agreed third party comment would be good (2) I have posted a note on the talk page for anyone interested to be involved, with a link to this notice so they can certainly join in if they wan (3) Some of them have expressed the view they *Do not* want to discuss it, though I agree, I think The Four Deuces may so I will put something on his talk page and I have added him above - Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the infobox does not say it was a draw; it says it was military stalemate which is not disputed even by those who say one side won. What is disputed (by a minority) is that it was a draw; it is not disputed that de facto it was a military stalemate. Military stalemate is also not mutually exclusive that one side, despite the de facto military stalemate per the Treat of Ghent, may have won according to some historians or popular views. What is mutually exclusive is draw and one side won, but we do not say either. We just say it was a military stalemate per the Treaty of Ghent. So I find this discussion unnecessary as per Shakescene we already had a long discussion that did not got us anywhere and that up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times . Besides it's really a variant of a position been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008.
At least as far as the outcome is concerned, the infobox is perfectly fine.--Davide King (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ykraps
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Like it or not, 'stalemate' is not a neutral term, it is a point of view, and not one that all historians subscribe to. Historians may not agree on the result of the war but all of them agree that it is disputed. Some editors have made this an argument about who won or fringe theories which, to me, shows a lack of understanding as to what the proposal is. If the infobox redirects to the section where the result is discussed, each point of view can be represented and given appropriate weight. This is in line with the infobox parameter guidelines here.] As things stand, if you are the sort of reader that looks solely at the infobox, you will be left with the impression that stalemate is the universally accepted view, and that is quite wrong.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
The dispute is about whether the info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw or something else. One side says that we should report it as a draw, because that is how it is reported in textbooks and other tertiary sources. the other side says that because a small number of historians and popular opinion in the Province of Ontario have challenged the generally accepted view, claiming it was either a British, American or Canadian victory, we should report that the outcome is disputed. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Red Rock Canyon
The issue is over the infobox, specifically the "Result" section. Previously, the text there had enjoyed consensus for at least 3 years. Then last month some editors proposed a change. There was a short discussion and the change was implemented. Then some other editors objected and changed it back, and opened an RFC (now at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23#Rfc about the outcome of the War of 1812). The RFC was poorly worded, leading to confusion among respondents (different editors making identical comments about what they believed the text should be framed their answers as both "yes" and "no"), but it was well-attended, with 12 editors commenting. Even while the RFC was ongoing, multiple editors opened many separate threads on the talk page about the same topic. The talk page quickly became obscenely long. Shakescene archived most of the talk page, including the still-active RFC . The massive walls of text and proliferation of this debate into a half dozen different discussions is bewildering and exhausting. There are too many editors involved for this to be resolved on DRN. I believe the ideal solution is to shut down all the parallel discussions, including this one, and compose a clearly-worded RFC that gives editors two options (the long-standing consensus version and Deathlibrarian's proposed change). Then widely advertise it, including to participants in the previous RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ironic Luck
There was no reason to change that particular set of words from the infobox as the War of 1812 is factually established as a military stalemate which resulted in status quo ante bellum. This led to differing views (in Memory and historiography) of “who really won” the war. A significant portion of the sources stated that the war ended in as a draw or that both sides won. Some claim British/Canadian or American victory.
The reasoning that was proposed by DeathLibrarian reveals a double-standard in the Canadian/British perspective. The same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.
I questioned how the British (and especially Canada) could claim victory when the Democratic-Republicans side of the United States celebrated their victory as they (strictly them) hadn’t lost anything in the war. There was even a Federal holiday to celebrate their victory (The Eighth) and lasted until the American Civil War broke out. The Americans in the modern era (generally) don’t care about the war. Canadian perspective is skewed with the Harper administration placing a large budget into commercial ads promoting nationalism with the “Canadian victory” narrative - when Canada wasn’t even a nation until 1867. Why "British/Canadian Victory-Stalemate" when the Americans felt they won at the time?
I conclude (as of now) that the number of historians that DeathLibrarian brings up as a Canadian/British Victory is an overblown proportion. Some of the sources he brought up stated that both sides claimed victory – perhaps a military stalemate linking to the memory and historiography section is a good idea? Ironic Luck (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenon
I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. That statement means that the inconclusive war between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a failed American invasion of Canada, which was British (being the part of British North America that had not become independent in the 1775-1783 war), advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
War of 1812 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Order of Nine Angles
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by RKT7789 on 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC).
 | Closed. Although the other editor responded initially, they did not follow up by responding to the moderator's request for a statement after four days. This appears to be a case where the other editor chooses not to engage in discussion. Read this essay and follow its advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I could use a fresh pair of eyes having an outsider perspective on the Nazi-Satanist Order of Nine Angles article. Anonymous and other users keep deleting chunks of article they deem against "NPOV" despite of being supported by numerous Reliable Source articles by BBC and others. I'm not seeing the issue despite of discussion, and I want to assume good faith even though other editors have reverted previous deletions as attempts of sanitation. The last edit again removed half of the infobox for "NPOV" How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like to see someone not engaged in editing the article to give their opinion if there truly is an issue or just clear cut case of WP:SEALION and attempts at sanitation. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Pavane7Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Order of Nine Angles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The dispute is about NPOV and using and giving prominence to unproven allegations and not providing the O9A denial of such allegations.--Pavane7 (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
First Statement by ModeratorIt appears that the editors are willing to have moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, don't guess. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not clarify the situation. Reply only to me, not to each other. Do not discuss things back-and-forth. It appears that either the only issue or one of the issues has to do with allegations of rape and human sacrifice, which are serious allegations and which require that Misplaced Pages address them carefully with attention to due level of coverage and to what reliable sources have written. I will ask each editor to state their initial position concerning coverage of the allegations, in one paragraph. Do not offer a compromise at this point, because that can come later. First we need to know what we are compromising between. Also, if there are any other issues, please state what the other issue is, in one sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
First Statement by EditorsO9A members have been tied to murder plots, but this is already covered on the page in length. I don't think the murder/sacrifice aspect needs more covering. I only want that the page covers the sexual assaults aspect, which has been reported by numerous RS sources. Pavane7 was originally unwilling to cover the subject, but did eventually add a section about the subject, even if just to say the claims were false. It's a bit better as it currently is, mentioning the crimes, the pro-rape literature by the group and briefly mentioning how police are concerned by the desire of some of the members to target children. Edit: User:HandThatFeeds makes a good point: "We do not have to provide a rebuttal from the subject to maintain NPOV. As it stands, your new section is overly accepting of O9A's statements while deriding the accusations as those of a "political advocacy group." This is really starting to smell of whitewashing." I'm inclined to agree. RKT7789 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by ModeratorOne of the editors has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement. If the other editor does not make a statement, this case will be closed within 24 hours. Since discussion is voluntary, discussion can resume on the article talk page. If there isn't any discussion then, read this essay, and consider using a Request for Comments to establish what reliable sources have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors
|
Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AvertSec on 18:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC).
| Closed due to lack of adequate prior discussion. A volunteer stated that the filing editor had not discussed the issue on the article talk page. 24 hours later, the filing editor has still not discussed the article content on the talk page. They are advised to discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I find the article politically biased. It presents only left-wing point of view. It does not cover author's response to the situation with "Cham niezbuntowany" book. The information in the lead (about the "myth" word usage) I find to be extreme case of cherrypicking and offensiveness. Trasz (talk · contribs) replied to my attempts to make the article more neutral with "vandalism" accusations. Whether we assume that mr Ziemkiewicz used the word "myth" correctly or not, it does not change the fact, that in multiple interviews (for example here or even in more detail here ) he explains exactly how he defines the word "myth". Using this to claim that he denies Holocaust (and this is the message that is currently placed in the lead of an article) is a very strong manipulation at best. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Balance critical information towards mr Ziemkiewicz with his response to the matter and remove offensive information from the lead. Summary of dispute by TraszPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Article's talk page pretty much sums it all - several native polish speakers, including me, pointed out that your understanding of the polish word "mit" is plain wrong. Summary of dispute by PsiĥedelistoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.As far as I can tell, there was no current dispute until AvertSec engaged in some recent page blanking. Piotrus watered down the original wording and opined on 1 July on talk page that it was justified as Summary of dispute by PiotrusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.RAZ is a controversial figure in Poland. We need to strike the balance while dealing with partisan sources on both sides. I think WP:BLP is very crucial to observe, but the article (and its lead) should also not avoid mentioning that the subject is controversial. Anyway, while more eyes are nice, I'll point out that AFAIK the 'last word' on this comes from my post few weeks ago at Talk:Rafał_A._Ziemkiewicz#"Mit" and nobody has replied to it yet, so... Reviewing the recent's article history, I see that User:AvertSec created their account on July 21, removed some content from the article twice (and was reverted), then jumped straight here without stopping by the discussion page. Something's fishy... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Zofia BranickaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Bulgars
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ss84325 on 06:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
| Closed. There has not been a discussion on the article talk page. This appears to be a complaint by one editor about the conduct of another editor. Either discuss it on the article talk page first, or report the conduct at WP:ANI if there really is a conduct issue (but read the boomerang essay first). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A user by the name of Beshogur edited the Misplaced Pages for the ancient nomadic peoples the Bulgars
There is a long debate on their origins if they were Turkic, Iranic, or of other origins and as these debates rage the account know as Beshogur edited the page with malicious nationalist intentions
He intentionally edited this page to put his thumb in the eye of Bulgarian history and to appropriate it as Turkish Truth is the average ethnic Turkish person is not even 10-20% of Turkic heritage By adding “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” it undermines Bulgarian history and heritage in a big way Just look at this persons account https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User:Beshogur
This is an insurance to Bulgarian history and heritage I do not blame Misplaced Pages however this one bad egg deserves his moderator status revoked immediately!!! He is abusing for nationalistic purposes !!!! How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bulgars How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? by removing "not to be mistaken with Bulgarian Turks" from the bulgar wiki page and remove "not to be mistaken with bulgars" from the Bulgarian Turks page :https://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgarian_Turks Summary of dispute by Ss84325 BeshogurPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Bulgars discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
List of largest empires
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 95.93.151.237 on 22:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC).
| Closed as not properly filed, probably not able to be properly filed, and not the best forum for the question. It is necessary to list all of the editors to file a case here. With more than 20 editors, a Request for Comments is a better idea, and does not require notifying the other editors, just putting the RFC in its place. If the filing unregistered editor wants assistance in formulating the RFC, they can ask on my talk page. Otherwise, resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In the List of largest empires page, there is clearly a big mistake about the size of the Portuguese empire and Brazil empire. The Brazilian empire is listed has been bigger than the Portuguese empire at their peaks. This is of course not true, the entire of Brazil once belonged to Portugal. The justification in there is "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Despite the source being reliable, this is false, as can be seen in the talk page, and in the archives, plenty of users provided enough evidence to dismiss this figure. A consensus is not reached because the user TompaDompa doesn't want to reach one and he acts like the page is owned by him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_largest_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_6 See on the various "Portuguese empires" or similar topics.
I think the volunteers should take a good look at all the evidence and sources already provided by various users in order to decide if the size of the Portuguese empire of 5.5 million km2 should be removed and finally reach a consensus. Thank you. Summary of dispute by various (more than 20)Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.List of largest empires discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
– New discussion.
Filed by Interfase on 00:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
User Mr.User200 adds the name of Polad Hashimov into the infobox as a commander/leader, however there is no any source claiming that he was a leader or commander during the clashes. Azerbaijani sources indicate that he died during the clashes, but do not indicate that he was a leader during clashes, Russian source (provided in article) says that he was from the 3rd Army Corps, but does not says that 3rd Army Corps participated in clashes and Hashimov was a leader at the time of clashes. And even if 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes it does not mean that its Chief was a leader during the clashes (e.g. there is possibility that he was killed before he gave an order to his army to do certain actions during the clashes). The only source claiming that 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes are Armenian that are not neutral and reliable and even these sources don't claim that Hashimov was a leader during the clashes. In my opinion here we have deal with typical POV-pushing of the product of original research.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes#Polad Hashimov
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Yes.
2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- For the record, Azerbaijani editor User:Interfase started blanking and errasing my edit at Infobox on the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the first one was reverted with the (He was not a commander) Edit Summary here. However in the source provided (Azeri source) says that Gen Polad was the Chieff of Staff of the N Unit, killed in the clashes. While trying to revert it again it was errased with this edit Summary. The section of commanders and leaders means literally that. Commanders and leaders. User:Interfase requested a source saying that Gen Polad was a Commander or Leader or the Azerbaijani 3rd Corps. The issue was taken to talk page and another used brought a Russian (Thrid party Source) corroborating that Gen Polad was a part of the 3rd Corps here. I used the source to replace and back my edit, and User:Interface reverted back my edit and demanded another source indicating that there were no proof the 3rd Corps was taking place at the clashes here. At talk, I placed a Official Armenian Source stating that that the 3rd Corps was present at the clashes and that was run out of ammo. However User:Interfase demanded a Azerbaijani Source once again. In a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Even he knows he dont have reasons to revert edits like that, demanding different things to justify its reverts. He placed a {cn} citation and a Original Research tag. He have a Heavy POV push of a personal way, I think national preferences should be placed in other place before editing. The article have a slight Pro-Azerbaijani POV, Azeri claims are used as primary sources, for example the claim that Serbia and Georgia were cobeligrents of Armenia and things like that. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes. Also Azerbaijan claims of Armenian soldiers killed are considered as factual and Armenian assesements of Azeri losses as "claims".Once Twice Thats wrong no neutrality at the article. Another POV push (See edit summary by other editor) Neutral editors should check all the content, or at least send aside their preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- The first thing that we need to know is that "Chieff of Staff of the N Unit or Chief of 3rd Corps" and "Commander or leader during the clashes" are different things. Even if the unit participated at the clashes at some period of time we cannot claim that its chief was a leader or commander during the clashes until he was killed. This is that we call original research. Maybe the commander of 3rd Corps during the clashes (even if they really participated at the clashes that is hardly to believe because the 3rd Corps are based in another district) was another officer. Maybe the 3rd Corps participated at the clashes after Hashimov's death. We do not know. We still do not have any source exactly claiming that Polad Hashimov took part in the clashes as a commander or leader. But you trying to keep your version in the article by all means originally collected the different information from the different sources. That is POV-pushing actually. Interfase (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, Azerbaijani editor User:Interfase started blanking and errasing my edit at Infobox on the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the first one was reverted with the (He was not a commander) Edit Summary here. However in the source provided (Azeri source) says that Gen Polad was the Chieff of Staff of the N Unit, killed in the clashes. While trying to revert it again it was errased with this edit Summary. The section of commanders and leaders means literally that. Commanders and leaders. User:Interfase requested a source saying that Gen Polad was a Commander or Leader or the Azerbaijani 3rd Corps. The issue was taken to talk page and another used brought a Russian (Thrid party Source) corroborating that Gen Polad was a part of the 3rd Corps here. I used the source to replace and back my edit, and User:Interface reverted back my edit and demanded another source indicating that there were no proof the 3rd Corps was taking place at the clashes here. At talk, I placed a Official Armenian Source stating that that the 3rd Corps was present at the clashes and that was run out of ammo. However User:Interfase demanded a Azerbaijani Source once again. In a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Even he knows he dont have reasons to revert edits like that, demanding different things to justify its reverts. He placed a {cn} citation and a Original Research tag. He have a Heavy POV push of a personal way, I think national preferences should be placed in other place before editing. The article have a slight Pro-Azerbaijani POV, Azeri claims are used as primary sources, for example the claim that Serbia and Georgia were cobeligrents of Armenia and things like that. Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes. Also Azerbaijan claims of Armenian soldiers killed are considered as factual and Armenian assesements of Azeri losses as "claims".Once Twice Thats wrong no neutrality at the article. Another POV push (See edit summary by other editor) Neutral editors should check all the content, or at least send aside their preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Editors are advised that Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions are applicable, to deal with battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Roman numerals
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Bigdan201 on 07:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
| Closed. The discussion is being repetitive. The filing editor can either post a Request for Comments or accept that there is a rough consensus against them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I'd like to add a new section to the article, describing the convention by which Roman Numerals are constructed in a coherent, logical manner. My content is reliably sourced, and through various revisions has become quality work. However, even after refinement, other editors still refuse to assent to the section going up. Their complaints seem to boil down to one of the following: 1. that the ruleset doesn't describe the system in a meaningful, consistent way (which it does) 2. that it's not based directly on the relevant RS (which it is) 3. that it's somehow redundant and doesn't cover a second approach lacking in the article (also incorrect) 4. that readers will be flummoxed and confused by my content (in spite of my streamlining and clarifying) The first 3 points are invalid. the only one that's debatable is the fourth, and even that seems to underestimate the intelligence of the average reader. there's nothing wrong with having a basic description and more thorough treatment side-by-side, I don't think this is confusing at all, and I can always mention in the lede how Roman Numerals can be described by two different approaches. The article as it stands gives a basic overview, but it doesn't describe in detail how the convention works. My section fills in this gap, and it's derived from the RS. In fact, some of my RS also have a 'twin approach' of a basic description next to logical rules, so there's no reason the article shouldn't do the same. my section can be seen here: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules As an aside, I'd be willing to compromise if necessary, as long as the core content is retained. For example, I could leave out the extended section on fractions/vinculums if needed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Roman_numerals#Ruleset_for_Roman_Numerals,_revisited Talk:Roman_numerals#Let's_actually_look_at_the_famous_"ruleset" Talk:Roman_numerals#Latest_rendition_of_ruleset How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My section has been blockaded by other editors, notably Soundofmusicals, who simply disagree with my approach, with not much of a valid reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Thus, I'd like more judgment and input on this matter, so that I can add my content to the article without being stonewalled. Thanks in advance. Summary of dispute by Soundofmusicals"Dispute" has continued (off and on) for a period of years. It is between one user and several other users (almost everyone who has recently edited Roman numerals). The "additional" matter that has been "blockaded" is not additional - but repeats the general description of "how Roman numerals work". Only one user (the proposer) considers that this repetition is superior to the existing text. Many cogent arguments against the proposed repetition have been presented by several users but no "new" arguments have been offered in return - (arguments in favour are still the same ones that were brought up originally - attempts to progress towards a compromise have been steadfastedly stonewalled by the proposer. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SpitzakThe proposal has more "rules" than there are different digits used in Roman numerals. It is not any kind of useful explanation, in fact figuring out what patterns are allowed by his rules and why is a difficult logic problem. Current explanation of the numbers is also bloated but much much better. Summary of dispute by Martin_of_SheffieldThe history of this dispute is documented at great length on the talk pages, where a majority consensus was reached. My part in this is best summed up by the following:which was followed by a table. Subsequently all other participants except Xcalibur/Bigdan201 took this as the basis for development. A further quote:
The discussion ceased on 4 June and the article has been stable since then. I'm not sure why Xcalibur/Bigdan201 has resurrected this nearly two months later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Roman numerals discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Gilad Atzmon
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jontel on 19:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
| Closed. This is a dispute about whether to put an article in a category. As such, this is not a useful forum to deal with such a dispute, because the objective of moderated discussion is compromise. There is no compromise on a category. It is either yes or no. Two alternatives would be a Third Opinion or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Atzmon, a WP:BLP, has been included in a category, Category:Anti-Judaism for several years. No justification (edit summary) was advanced for his addition to the category. The arguments against his inclusion are as follows. The category definition is "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior.” Atzmon, brought up as a secular Jew, has no known religious beliefs. His criticisms do not come from the standpoint of someone following an alternative religion, as the category demands. He has acquired a reputation for criticising Jewish nationalism and Jewish political modes of thinking including, but not only, Zionism, but has repeatedly said that he is not criticising Judaism, the religion. Another editor has quoted Hirsh as describing Atzmon of using anti-Jewish rhetoric. Whether or not that is the case, his brief examples are secular, not religious. The editor has also quoted Sunshine who describes Atzmon as denouncing Judaism, alleging Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish ideology, though Sunshine’s reliance on a brief extract from an anonymous open letter makes interpretation difficult. However, it is consistent with Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish nationalism and socio-economic-political behaviour and attitudes and does not entail an attack on the religion per se and certainly not from a religious standpoint. The burden of proof is on those seeking the article's inclusion and I think it fails the test. ‘Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.’ WP:CATVER I think that this categorisation is controversial and that the material in the article does not support it and advocate the article's removal from it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#Proposed_removal_of_article_from_the_Anti-Judaism_category How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing a clear independent interpretation of whether or not Atzmon meets the criteria for inclusion in Category:Anti-Judaism, bearing in mind the requirements for verifiability and avoidance of controversy WP:CATVER, with a rationale, and a route by which the article may be removed from the category if it does not meet the criteria. Summary of dispute by HippeusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Gilad Atzmon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Names and titles of God in the New Testament
– New discussion.
Filed by Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco on 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs)
- Bealtainemí (talk · contribs)
- Warshy (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A table with Bible verses was erased, and I have tried to show that it is good to include it. I cannot agree with the other editor.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Names_and_titles_of_God_in_the_New_Testament#NT_quotations
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Perhaps our point of view is not complete, so a third opinion is appreciated.
Summary of dispute by Bealtainemí
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker."A table with Bible verses was erased", says JLACO, without saying in what way, if any, he thinks the table benefitted the article Names and titles of God in the New Testament to which he added it. Nobody questions the fact that the Hebrew tetragrammaton יהוה, the name Yahweh, appears nowhere in the (Greek-language) New Testament, and that, in its quotations of Old Testament passages that contain that name, the New Testament speaks of God as Κύριος (LORD) or θεός (GOD). JLACO has compiled a very long table comprising certain Old Testament phrases that in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (in its present form later than the New Testament) contain the word יהוה, and links them with New Testament phrases that some see as echoing (even if not translating) the Old Testament phrases. The table does not claim to contain all such echoes and some of the supposed echoes have been challenged. JLACO has not responded to requests to explain what, in the context of the Misplaced Pages article, he thinks his disproportionately long table adds to the unquestioned straightforward statement that the New Testament uses, in its echoes of the Old Testament, Κύριος or Θεός where the Masoretic text uses יהוה. Flogging a dead horse? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Warshy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Names and titles of God in the New Testament discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Panko Brashnarov
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jamesrichards12345 on 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC).
| Withdrawn as resolved by filing party. Kudos to the disputants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute began when I was doing my regular gnome tasks on Misplaced Pages and I added'Bulgarian' in front of the word 'revolutionary' based on other information on the page such as that he went to a Bulgarian school and served in the Bulgarian army in WW1 which led to this edit being undone and being told to discuss my change. I complied with this request fully and began to discuss this edit with the user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Local_hero who was the person that undone my edit. The back story to this is that Local_hero is Macedonian which is a new nationality that has developed in the past 100 years and they have disputes with other ethnicities about the ethnicity of famous figures. I have tried to fully discuss the reasoning behind my edit with Local Hero however he has essentially tried to shut down the discussion by not beign part of it since it is not in his interest to do so as there is no evidence to disprove the factual accuracy of my edit at least in my opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Panko_Brashnarov How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like someone to take a look at the evidence in the article and any extra evidence in the discussion and decide whether adding Bulgarian in front of revolutionary is factually accurate or not. I don't mind if the decision is a no, I just want someone to willingly engage in the discussion so we can come to a conclusion with real reasoning. Summary of dispute by Local_HeroPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.What a thoughtful summation of an entire ethnic group in your Dispute overview and your unbiased belief as to how this applies to my own editing. Shall I opine on my perception of your editing bias, seeing as your edits rarely go beyond throwing "Bulgarian" in historical bios or "North" in front of any mention of Macedonia (where it refers to the modern country)? Please don't disparage my editing as going around disputing the ethnicities of historical figures because I rarely do. On topic, I think the situation is pretty clear. The editor attempting to make the change finds the ethnic identity of the individual to be clear-cut. Upon reading the article, I disagree and find the present state to be sufficient (i.e. second sentence of the article). Brashnarov was in the Yugoslav Communist Party and fought against the Axis in WWII. He was also the first speaker of the Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, celebrated by Macedonians to this day because it declared Macedonia the nation-state of ethnic Macedonians in Yugoslavia and declared the Macedonian language the official language of the state. In addition, nationality is typically put in the lead sentence of biographical articles, not ethnicity. Going by that, Ottoman and Yugoslav would be better suited. --Local hero 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC) Panko Brashnarov discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Dispute has been resolved, you can close this ticket thanks a bunch. --James Richards (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Britannia (TV series)
– New discussion.
Filed by Tvcameraop on 17:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Tvcameraop (talk · contribs)
- SethRuebens (talk · contribs)
- Schazjmd (talk · contribs)
- PAVA11 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There are claims by an author named Ben Krushkoff that the work being discussed in the article is an unauthorised adaption of his work. A section about this controversy was added by user SethRuebens in December 2019 and has been removed and re-added repeatedly, and has now been discussed at length on various talk pages. There is little consensus as to whether the sources provided are reliable secondary sources, as various users claim they are and other uses are of the opinion that they are not. There is also a dispute as to whether the article is neutral (as per WP:NPOV) in a state where it does not mention the controversy.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Britannia_(TV_series)#Controversy User_talk:SethRuebens#July_2020_2 Misplaced Pages:Teahouse#Academic_and_expert_reference_being_disputed
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Conclusion as to whether the article is neutral in the current state without mentioning the controversy - if it is not, are the sources provided reliable secondary sources as per WP:RELIABLE?
Summary of dispute by SethRuebens
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Schazjmd
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Ben Krushkoff claims Britannia plagiarized his work, Tribus. I have searched and been unable to find any independent sources that have taken any notice of these claims. The sources offered for including his claim in the article are: an announcement that he gave a talk on scriptwriting, Krushkoff's YouTube video, and letters which Krushkoff posted to his own website here, here, and here. I believe Krushkoff's self-published sources are insufficient to support a statement in the article, and without any independent, reliable recognition of those claims, it is undue to mention them. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Adding a diff to the specific text and refs in dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by PAVA11
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.I too have searched extensively for reliable, independent sources addressing the claim and have been unable to find any, thus concluding it is inappropriate for inclusion. Even if a token reference were found, it would likely be undue weight. This has been explained extensively to the user on the talk page by several editors, by several uninvoled editors at TEAHOUSE, and by uninvolved administrators. The only users who want the content added appear to be single purpose accounts coming to Misplaced Pages solely to push this dubious claim, as indicated by their edit histories and in one case professed on their user page. PAVA11 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Britannia (TV series) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Kamala Harris
– New discussion.
Filed by Jab73 on 07:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Jab73 (talk · contribs)
- Calton (talk · contribs)
- Rklahn (talk · contribs)
- Manicjedi (talk · contribs)
- ValarianB (talk · contribs)
- Nbauman (talk · contribs)
- jpgordon (talk · contribs)
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
- PrimaPrime (talk · contribs)
- Neutrality (talk · contribs)
- Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
- Sphilbrick (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Kamala Harris is a United States senator. There is a "2019" subsection to her Misplaced Pages article. I added the following text on 05:21, 22 July 2020: "In 2019, Harris missed 61.9 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis. Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires." I supported these contentions with reliable sources, including GovTrack.us, Politico, and a Stanford University publication. "Missed votes"/"voting participation" is a standard metric of performance of members of Congress -- how many votes are missed in a particular year. "Congressional Quarterly," for example, has calculated this metric for all members of Congress since the 1940s. However, other Misplaced Pages editors will not permit me to post any of this. User Calton, for example, removed my entire post just 20 minutes later (05:41, 22 July 2020) with an edit note: "Not this garbage again. How many times do you have to be told: YOU DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS". User Calton and others on the Talk page make no effort to reach consensus, but rather threaten me: e.g., from Calton: "At this point, it's becoming pure disruption, and a topic ban/page block for you is perfectly justified." I have been studying Congress intensively for more than 25 years. Congressional scholars would almost uniformly agree that "Missed Votes"/"Voting Participation" is an objective benchmark. I believe that it's highly salient that Senator Harris missed 62% of all Senate votes in 2019, regardless of the reason. But to "scrub" this highly relevant, objective benchmark (commented upon by numerous reliable sources) from a Misplaced Pages article, just because other editors do not want readers to see it, is outrageous. There are other issues that concern me about the Kamala Harris Misplaced Pages page, but I will proceed with dispute resolution about those separately.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
] See "Attendance" section of Kamala Harris Talk page
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would like to see a Misplaced Pages consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. When a U.S. senator has a Misplaced Pages article that discusses that senator's activities, year by year, it's highly relevant to state that GovTrack.us found that senator missed 62% of votes that year.
Summary of dispute by Calton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Rklahn
I believe mention of this without additional context is prejudicial. Parliamentary rules in both houses of Congress tilt to permit absenteeism to run for higher office. The vast majority of votes in the Senate are procedural, mainly cloture votes. I also think that without context, it looks like results would have changed with the presence of Sen. Harris, that does not appear to be the case. Rklahn (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Manicjedi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by ValarianB
Seems like a Request for Comment would have been a better choice. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Nbauman
No one has given a reason based on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines why "Missed Votes" and "Voting Participation" are not permitted in articles about members of Congress. I judge this based on WP:RS WP:WEIGHT, which say that text should be in proportion to its appearance in WP:RS. Since many WP:RS have mentioned this, it belongs in the article.Summary of dispute by jpgordon
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek; PrimaPrime; Neutrality
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Gandydancer
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Kamala Harris discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.Swaminarayan Sampradaya
– New discussion.
Filed by Kbhatt22 on 10:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs)
- Apollo1203 (talk · contribs)
- Moksha88 (talk · contribs)
- Applebutter221 (talk · contribs)
- TheNDNman224 (talk · contribs)
- Harshmellow717 (talk · contribs)
- Skubydoo (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Hello, I don't know where to start. First off thank you for the time. I have been trying to bring neutral consensus for over 2 weeks now and am requesting outside assistant. I myself have remained civil and am trying to stick to WIKI policies. I asked peaceray for direction and he sent me here. basically 2 weeks ago, some IPs came and removed content they claimed was bias, Edit warring ensued. The IPs made roughly 16 edits. No discussion at that point, both sides were just undoing each other. I stepped in and tried to be neutral and outlined the 4 points I found that had merit and I corroborated 4 of the 16 edits with more sources, my changes were also undone.
I have tried to stay neutral in all this and respectful. I see merit on both sides but the one side is removing anything they don't like that the IP adds and the IP is removing stuff they feel is BAPS/branch specific specific. I proposed a neutral consensus/resolution. I proposed that the page remain strictly to temples, idols and scriptures created by religion founder and then it link off to each branch where that branches ideology can be outlined. This page is currently dominated by one branch, using a lot of one branches documents for support which would violate the (Misplaced Pages:Neutrality of sources) policy as well is the independent sources policy by my understanding as they have a vested interest being one branch within the Swaminarayan family. Even from imagery, there is 9 images on that page and 8 are from BAPS and 3 specifically highlight their leader even tho the image is suppose to be about something else. These red flags are acknowledged but no consensus on a lot of the proposed changes is able to be reached.
I proposed edits on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox I can link almost 90% of the images and a large amount of sources originate exclusively from one branch that is attempting to represent the entire religion when that branch wasn't founded for 100 years after the religions origin. I am simply suggesting diversification of sources and images on the page. I have proposed replacement images with reasoning that diversify and simplify the page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox
I have provided sources, and ample reasoning and logic for my proposed changes. Consistently, the users who have a history of working together on this content as well as the similar IPs either ignore certain points I make or take turns responding so I am constantly making the same points with limited counter discussion. I feel like an independent entity with no bias to the subject would benefit this dispute.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I didn't start this dispute. I just tried to help both sides reach a consensus and this has turned into a 3 week drag along. I am just hoping someone with no outside bias or no history of work in the section but a veteran of wiki could help. I have been respectful, neutral, and tried to be logical. If I am wrong, I will take it from someone who has the neutral viewpoint. I just do not see what is wrong with my proposed edits pushing for diversification and equal inclusion of all branches.
Summary of dispute by Apollo1203
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Moksha88
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Applebutter221
Users Apollo1203 and Moksha88 have a history of trying to dominate users forcing editors into not making any negative or critical appearing edits to BAPS and related articles. My theory is that they are members of the group and are constantly working together to constantly remove items and have been accused in the past https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Moksha88/Archive. The article and edits in question are heavily sources with biased BAPS materials, a sect that was disbarred and excommunicated from the parent group. The founder made up accusations to get followers to worship him and formally left the Swaminarayan Sampraday. Evidence is below:- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#WP:OR,_Recent_Lead_Paragraph_Edits (Refusal to let leaders know that the BAPS founder left the parent group to start his own thing. They are hell bent on trying to convince readers their version of their beliefs are right and refuse to state with FOUR verbatim sources they their founder left which makes their founder look bad as it is in the scripture of the Swaminarayan Sampraday to never fight with his relatives.)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Vachanamrut (Constant mention of Akshar-Purushottam Darshan which is cherry picked out of a 600 page book and has establishment when the Swaminarayan Sampraday was created to when the founder died)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj#Pramukh_Swami_Sexual_Abuse (Same group of users removing allegations of sexual abuse of a high profile incident within BAPS with Pramukh Swami)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya#Original_Research (fighting tooth and nail to slant the article towards baps and sources are skewed toward pushing an agenda)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Morari_Bapu#Removal_of_Sarcastic_Dig_at_Swaminarayan (Look how the support each other and drag out battles for months and then ultimately remove anything that appears to be critical even though it has encyclopedic value and plentiful sources. This strategy deters users from editing and they control the narrative.)