• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

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

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

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over 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 gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

I disagree. One source comes from Forbes Staff the other from Desert news which are both listed as a reliable source. America is not listed but is generally regarded as reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

There are countless sources that report on polls about abortion, and some of them mention the Helms Amendment. If we mentioned every single poll that exists in an article that mention the Helms Amendment, the article would be 200,000 words very quickly. Wes sideman (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

At least three reliable sources mention this poll giving it notability. Along with the fact that Marist is highly rated for polling. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand the point, but feel that Marist's respected status as a polling group justifies it Pollster Ratings - Marist College | FiveThirtyEight Anyway cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So just a very quick search without more investigation finds this 2021 opinion piece by a reproductive rights organization which cites a poll which directly contradicts the Marist poll: "Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans support funding global health programs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, abortion included. The same poll showed a majority of Americans want to repeal Helms." We could do more searching for polls, but I predict the results will be wildly inconsistent, especially if the polls are funded by pro/anti groups, rather than neutral organizations. ---Avatar317 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The link to the polling for the article did not work for me. Is it the polling referred to in this article? Jayapal’s claim that ‘the majority of the country’ supports federal funding of abortion - The Washington Post 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, the link didn't work for me either, so I couldn't investigate that poll. Thanks for finding the WaPo story, though! It supports what I was saying: We’re often wary of polls commissioned by advocacy groups. In this case, Jayapal is relying on a poll done for a group that wants more public funding of abortions. The outcome of polls often depends greatly on the framing of questions. ---Avatar317 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

• Horst Wessel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 80.56.194.80 (talk · contribs)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)
• Jon Çobani (talk · contribs)
• 77.164.171.122 (talk · contribs)
• Socksage (talk · contribs)
• AntiDionysius (talk · contribs)
• 2002:932f:f0ce::932f:f0ce (talk · contribs)
• 128.194.155.43 (talk · contribs)
• Tkbrett (talk · contribs)
• Immanuelle (talk · contribs)
• Clone commando sev (talk · contribs)
• 82.37.67.100 (talk · contribs)
• RRRRzzzpppp (talk · contribs)
• 91.116.34.197 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue arose in February 2023 when user an IP user made a bold edit and inserted the following into the first sentence of the article's lead: "German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes". This conflicts with the Manual of Style for LEADBIO by inserting material that does not pass the notability threshold into the lead, giving it undue weight. The change was soon reverted by multiple users, but Beyond My Ken immediately re-reverted it to the bold edit version, without consensus, and continued to do so, even claiming it was the "latest good version" (LGV), despite many more users removing this content, and him being the primary one to re-revert their changes. This is what I sought to rectify when I made my initial change on 8 November. The language in the lead is biased, unencyclopedic, and does not pass notability muster. Several users continue re-add it claiming it is sourced, which is irrelevant, or that there was consensus for this change, which there never was. In short: A bold edit was made which put inappropriate language in the lead, in violation of Misplaced Pages's guidelines, several users reverted it over the months, and also raised the issue in the talk section. Other users, mainly Beyond My Ken, have re-reverted these to support a bold edit, and either refused to participate in discussion, or in the case of Beyond My Ken, only given short facetious responses while accusing others of Nazi sympathies. They are now attempting to claim the change has consensus, which it does not and never did.

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

Talk:Horst_Wessel#Pimp_and_procurer,_again Talk:Horst_Wessel#Why_is_him_being_a_Gangster_and_an_Alleged_Pimp_mentioned_before_him_being_a_nazi?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify the Misplaced Pages guidelines in this case, offer a third-party opinion, and a platform for mediation.

Summary of dispute by 80.56.194.80

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken

I will not participate in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jon Çobani

Summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122

Open to participate. I removed the introductory text of Horst Wessel being a pimp and gangster back in March and am surprised to see that over half a year later, certain individuals seems very adamant with describing this nazi as a gangster and a pimp. I don't think this information whether or not correct, has any place in the lead, especially not before describing him as a Nazi; which in my opinion is what most sane people would think of him being. If your first thought of Horst Wessel is anything else but "Nazi", I get very suspicious of your actions and perspective on life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.171.122 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Socksage

Summary of dispute by AntiDionysius

Summary of dispute by 2002:932f:f0ce::932f:f0ce

Summary of dispute by 128.194.155.43

Summary of dispute by Tkbrett

Summary of dispute by Immanuelle

The basic situation as I see it is that an ip editor was consistently attempting to revert a relatively long-held version of the lede. If the person was using an account I'd see this as a much more reasonable situation, but being an ip I am highly suspicious of this person and their possible motives being WP:Nothere. There has been extensive edit warring whenever ip editing is allowed on the pageImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Clone commando sev

I am not really involved with any of the actual dispute, from my perspective I saw a lead that placed a minor element of his life, pimping, before the major element of his life, being a nazi. I made a message on the talk page and that seems to have reignited a long-running dispute. readsing back, to me it looks like Beyond My Ken is taking "ownership" of the article and is assuming bad faith, accusing people of whitewashing nazis. I will most likely be inactive in the dispute discussion because I just made a talk page post, and wasn't involved in any argument or edit-war. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 82.37.67.100

Summary of dispute by RRRRzzzpppp

Summary of dispute by 91.116.34.197

Horst Wessel discussion

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)

There appears to be edit-warring between registered editors, who want to have the lede sentence identify the subject as a gangster, pimp, and Nazi, and unregistered editors, who want to identify the subject as a Nazi. One of the registered editors has declined to participate in the case. There are seven listed registered editors, and an undeterminable number of unregistered editors, because IP addresses shift. This is more editors than can feasibly take part in moderated discussion. If any registered editors want to advocate for the version that omits his involvement in organized crime, I will develop and submit an RFC to obtain consensus. If this is strictly a dispute between registered editors with names or pseudonyms and unregistered editors, I will close this case request. Please read DRN Rule A if you want to take part in moderated discussion, and respond that you agree to the rules. Are there any registered editors who want to propose the version of the lede that omits his involvement in organized crime? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I included too many users, but as this was dispute resolution discussion, I erred on the side of including more users than less. However, I categorically reject the notion that this is a dispute strictly between unregistered and registered users. Clone commando sev & Socksage are both registered users who have either, through discussion or edits, supported the non-inclusion of said material from the lede. I don't know why the version which mentions allegations of pimping (in contravention with Misplaced Pages guidelines, and which never had consensus) is being treated as the status quo, but I will go and make a registered account, publicly disclosing my IP editing, if it will advance this dispute resolution. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree to the DRN rule A. I was IP 77.164.171.122 for the March 4th edit as described in summary as well as that IP for the summary written under summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122. on this page.

Wesel is known only as a Nazi. His death may have been related to prostitution, of course, but it was also related to the Nazis versus the Communists. If he had not been a Nazi he would not have been known at all and would have been forgotten. The focus should be on the fact that he was a Nazi, and this should be the first descriptor of him. I can compromise on "Nazi, pimp, and gangster" but not with "Gangster, pimp, and nazi", although I'd rather the pimp & gangster part be displayed in the body and not in the lead.

I want to point out that this is what seems to me like the same opinion as what registered user Clone commando sev voiced in the talk page therefore I'm also confused of your summary of all registered users wanting to have the lede sentence identify the subject as "gangster, pimp, and Nazi" in that order when this is not the case. Vydrakk (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I said "most likely inactive" but I need to point out, to me it seems like the dispute is more everyone v BMK, and less Registered v IPs. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

First statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)

I have created a draft RFC asking the community to choose between the two versions of the lede sentence that are being edit-warred. The draft RFC is at Talk:Horst Wessel/RFC on Lede . Please review and comment on the RFC. I will publish it after any comments have been considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

Uninvolved editor, but I have been watching this page on and off for a while and have read talk discussion and sources, particularly the ones recently added to the lead. Although an RfC may be called for, I am not certain it will achieve the best outcome here. There has been edit warring over a sentence in the lead, but I believe there is room for a suitable compromise. My belief is that those wanting removal of the sentence have rightly identified that the information about Wessel being a pimp is neither certain nor particularly due, and the addition of citations to suport it there have damaged a clean lead in a good article; its inclusion in the lead does not summarise main text, so it is novel information. Siemens (2013) does discuss this aspect, and shows that although the allegations that he was a pimp were perhaps made as cover, they are also plausible. But he was not particularly known for being a pimp/procurer, and so it is undue in the lead. This information should be in the main text, suitably summarising Siemens. It should not be excised altogether. Other treatments of him do not stress this aspect, but any suitably detailed discussion of his life and death would surely mention it. As regards the gangster allegation, the wording there might be tweaked (I am not sure 'gangster' is quite right), but it is a summary of the main text and in line with treatment by, e.g., Britannica. My concern with an RfC on the lead is this: It might lead to a frozen lead, either with novel information not supported by main text, or with that information excised but not transferred to main text, where it should be. There might be a temptation then to brook no changes to that lead, which would prevent movement towards something more nuanced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)

A previously uninvolved editor has offered some useful thoughts on a possible compromise. Please read his comments. Before I publish the RFC, which at present asks for a choice only between two versions of the lede, please consider and discuss whether a compromise version of the lede is possible. Remember that it isn't necessary to say everything in the lede, and that all of the details that are attributable to reliable sources should be included in the article body. So: Does anyone have any follow-up thoughts? Even better, does anyone have a compromise idea for the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

Discussion moved from draft RFC

I would suggest changing the nazi-first version of the lead to include a mention of him becoming a martyr-figure, something like

"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."

Thats just one way of including it, others are just as valid. Clone commando sev (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I find the RfC in its current state satisfactory, I however concur with Clone commando sev's comment. I would prefer the language of the intro sentence to be reverted to how it was pre-February 2023, or in a form similar to which I edited it on 8 November, such as:

"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Known for his murder in 1930, he became a martyr for the Nazi Party."

this may seem insignificant, but the first paragraph is often the information which appears in a Google search, and anywhere Misplaced Pages is accessed via widget. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - An RfC may be the way to go here, but I think an unintended consequence of an RfC will be that whichever form of the lead gains consensus, this will then appear to be locked in in a manner that would be hard to overcome. It seems to me that the information about being a pimp (and those references) should be in the main, not in the lead. Siemens (2013) is the better reference and discusses at length the accusations and evidence, particularly with respect to his death. I don't think it is leadworthy to say "some people say he was x" in the first sentence of the lead, and whether or not he was a pimp (on the evidence, I think it is reasonable to think so), he was not known for this. That he was a gangster or similar wording, however, finds support already in the main and is more clearly established by the facts. I thus looked at other sources. Britannica has "A student and low-life bohemian, Wessel joined the Nazi Party in 1926". Other sources, such as the Holocaust Encyclopaedia don't even go that far. But I would think a reasonable compromise is:

  Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

  Although there may be a better word than "gangster". But really the principles here are:

1. An RfC is about resolving an explicit inclusion but must not be used to set the lead permanently in stone.
2. The lead should not have novel information in it.
3. Per MOS:LEADCITE if the lead were a proper summary of the main, it would not need citations in it. Other than the two added to bolster this controversial addition, the lead of this good article has no other references and was, until recently, a good example of a clean lead.
4. The information about the procuring of the prostitutes is due for the article and should not be expunged altogether. It should be in the main.

I am not sure that an RfC on the lead will deliver a consensus on those points. Indeed, if option B were the pre-22 February version (saying in wiki-voice that he "became a martyr"), and if a consensus were used to freeze the lead to that version or if the consensus froze in the current problematic option A form, I think that either would be an undesirable outcome. What is really needed is less reversion to "good versions" and more listening to the arguments being made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree, but disagree regarding compromise. Inserting two things that do not at all belong in the lead due to WP:NOTABILITY, then "compromising" for the sake of Misplaced Pages bureaucracy, still leaves in the end result one foreign, inappropriate descriptor being left in the lede. Compromise in this way need not be necessary simply because a multiplicity of inappropriate descriptors were inserted into the lede. I would be accepting of this approach if there was a plurality of reliable sources using such language, but they do not as best I can tell. The following sources, which are the first biographical articles of Wessel to appear when Google searched, refer to Wessel almost exclusively as a "Nazi", never using the descriptors "gangster" or "pimp":

• Jewish Virtual Library
• USHMM Holocaust Encyclopedia
• Britannica
• Spartacus Educational

they at most make reference to Wessel being in a extremist party, at a time when political violence was commonplace. Only one (Spartacus) makes any reference to Wessel as a "pimp" at all, and it only does so via the disputed Erika Mann narrative. A Google search is not the end all be all, but the onus is on the editors advocating their inclusion to prove these descriptors are widely used by historians, not for others to disprove it. It seems quite plainly in contravention of MOS:LEADBIO and to be WP:UNDUE to list what appear to be uncommon, fringe descriptors in the lede at all, especially when the language is bordering on unencyclopedic. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Third statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)

The Discussion section of the draft RFC is for discussion after the RFC is published. I have moved the discussion from there to here. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion so that you can improve the wording of the two alternate ledes, one of which emphasizes his connection to organized crime, and one of which focuses solely on his status as a murdered Nazi. You may discuss improvements to the wording of the two proposed ledes, and are also encouraged to draft compromise language as was proposed by User:Sirfurboy.

Are there any further comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

Fourth statement by moderator (Horst Wessel)

User:Immanuelle has asked whether the status of this DRN thread is affected by the block of the filing editor or the semi-protection of the article. I expressed the concern initially that this thread seemed to be edit-warring between registered editors and unregistered editors, and was told that registered editors were on both "sides" of the dispute, and they still are. Also, protection or semi-protection of an article usually does not stop or suspend moderated discussion. Protection is a temporary measure to stop edit-warring, and to allow dispute resolution to take place in a more orderly manner. Besides, registered editors still can edit the article, so it is still useful to reach rough consensus. So: This moderated discussion will continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is about the first sentence. The second sentence says that Goebbels made him a martyr for the Nazi Party, and the second sentence is not the subject of the dispute. If there is a disagreement about the second sentence, it can be resolved by normal discussion, or by moderated discussion, but discussion of the second sentence does not affect the draft RFC, which is about the first sentence.

Does anyone have a suggestion for Option C? I would like to include a third proposed version of the first sentence in the RFC. Discussion can continue in the section for back-and-forth discussion. If there is no progress made on an Option C, I will publish the RFC with two options, but I think that another version is in order.

Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

• Comment - I made a suggestion for a possible option C above, except that I don't like the word "gangster". Reading Siemens, he introduces Wessel as a pastor's son who became a street fighter. He entered right wing politics while in school, and this was often violent. However, as Siemens points out, he was of no more than local notoriety at this point, almost unheard of. How about this as an option C:

  Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German pastor's son and street fighter who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

  If anyone can do better, I am happy to let this one pass in favour of an alternative compromise candidate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Horst Wessel)

There are now three options for the lede sentence, to be decided by RFC. I will publish the RFC when we are satisfied that it presents the choice and is what we want the community to respond to.

Are there any other questions or comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)

I think the RFC is ready for publication as it currently is. The 3 options available seem to be representative of all opinions on the matter. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Horst Wessel)

If this section is for improving wording, I'd like to put forward my idea,

"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."

this would replace option B on the RFC. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I’m not 100% sure if this is following proper protocol responding here, but I noticed both that the page is protected and the ip user is blocked. Should this have implications as far as this dispute resolution goes in the future? Was there a non-ip representative of the ips side? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Khitan (circumcision) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• QamarBurtuqali (talk · contribs)
• Barbardo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User @Barbardo is making unbalanced edits of the section "Comparisons with female circumcision." He replaced a paragraph with information he copied, verbatim, from the long article Religious views on female genital mutilation causing WP:UNDUE weight.

It is impossible to discuss @Barbardo's edits in the Talk Page because his English is absolutely terrible.

For example, he wrote: "You removed sources and then added primary sources which one hadith calling for it are deemed weak/daeef and then added a unsourced line about it being mostly found in muslim countries when it varies and is primarily based in africa my suggestion is removing the hadiths and the above line you made in the start of the paragraph. " And he also wrote: "You can't add hadiths as they are primary sources witgoyt secondary sources and you have also copied the first paragraph its fine as it because the hadith that calls for it is weak."

@Barbardo causes WP:Disruptive editing because of his terrible English. He is not qualified to edit per WP:Competence is required.

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

Talk:Khitan (circumcision)#I rewrote the section "Comparisons with female circumcision"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

@Barbardo causes WP:Disruptive editing because of his terrible English. He is not qualified to edit per WP:Competence is required. Please stop him.

Summary of dispute by Bardardo

Khitan (circumcision) discussion

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.