Revision as of 18:23, 27 December 2015

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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.

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 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Chai Vang

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Chai Vang (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lance616168 (talk · contribs)
• WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Truth is, there was 2 confrontations and the victims chased down Vang and confronted him again and also blocked Vang from leaving after being confronted again. Multiple sources, the court transcript, the trial video recording and audio recording of the victim's testimonies all prove my case.

The article also neglects the significant details of the case by not including threats that were made to Vang by the victims and that one of the victims stepped in Vang's way, blocking Vang from leaving. Plenty of articles states that but it isn't included in the article which just shows you how biased this is. More examples of the bias in the article; Where is the details of the Hmong communities's reaction? Why is there only one thing written in the reaction section which was saying Hmongs aren't aware of trespassing and that they were being educated to understand trespassing. There were plenty of reactions by many communities. Such as a White supremacists group distributing flyers, protesters with signs saying send Vang back to Vietnam, Vang's wife being threatened, and Vang's home being burned down. These are all significant details that wasn't included in the article that happened because of the shooting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debated on the talk page and turned to Neutral POV noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

Take complete control of the edits of the article and edit it and have more opinions about the conflict.

Summary of dispute by WilliamThweatt

This feels a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping by an WP:SPA with a stated agenda (here, here, here, and especially, here) of victim blaming. There has been copious discussion on the article talk page, and the complainant has recently made two previous appeals (here and here) to WP:NPOV/N that didn't go "his way". The "sources" he wants to include have been evaluated (see the talk page discussion and the NPOV/N links above) and, from the ones deemed reliable and/or usable, I have incorporated the information into the article...that is, from the very sources he provided! It has been explained to him (by users other than myself) at the other forums why the other "sources" aren't suitable or are WP:UNDUE, he just keeps refusing to hear that Misplaced Pages isn't the place to right perceived wrongs. Everything that needs to be said has already been said, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss or that any further discussion would be productive.--William Thweatt 01:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chai Vang discussion

• Volunteer note - Although there has been extensive discussion at the talk page, none of it has been within the past month. The other editor has not been notified. Comment on content, not contributors. This thread will probably be closed procedurally in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• DRN Coordinator's Note — I've notified the other editor. I agree that this is becoming very close to being too old to accept for lack of recent discussion, but it's close enough that I think it ought to go forward if at the two originally-listed the participants care to do so. If they both do, then we may need to consider whether DreamGuy is also necessary to the mediation due to his participation in the discussion at NPOVN, but I kind of don't think that he is unless he cares to be. I don't think that anyone else — i.e. Drcrazy102 or Hughesdarren — needs to be listed since everyone else participated in either a dispute resolution or procedural-suggestion mode. Those other parties should, however, not participate here as DRN volunteers or neutral parties; they may join as disputants if they care to do so, of course. Regards, Transporter===Man (TALK) 23:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 To DRN volunteers: I will be recusing as a DRN Volunteer for this case, as suggested by TransporterMan, and will respond to any questions or if it is deemed that my opinion is needed. However, I will admit that I am tired of this dispute between the users and will not join this case of my own volition - I will join only if my viewpoint or commentary is needed or desired. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will ask each of the parties to present a new summary of the case, since the previous statements contained too much hostility and commenting on contributors. Here are a few ground rules. I will check this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to comment at least every 48 hours. Comment on content, not on contributors. Comment on contributors will either be collapsed or hatted, or will result in the case being failed. I will have a zero-tolerance attitude toward comments on contributors that are not meant to improve the article. Do not edit the article while this case is being discussed. Do not comment at the talk page, because comments at the talk page may be ignored. Be civil and concise. Civility is not optional in Misplaced Pages. It is mandatory, especially in content dispute resolution. Excessively long posts may make the poster feel better, but they don't help clarify anything. Please respond with civil and concise summaries of what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Pashtuns

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• WikiBulova (talk · contribs)
• Krzyhorse22 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The User:Krzyhorse22 has removed the photos of Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan and Pashtun Forien Minister of Pakistan. But he insists on the photos of non-Pashtun Indian actresses with Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan to be added in the Pashtuns page. Are photos of Indian actors and actresses more important than the Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan in the Pashtuns page ? If so then why do the photos of Pashtun Presidents of Afghanistan are also there in Pahtuns page. The Indian actresses Anushka Sharma and Katrina Kaif are not even Pashtuns ! The photo of just Shah Rukh Khan by himself can be added but not with the non-Pashtun Indian actresses. Like we have the photo of just Indian actor Saif Ali Khan in the Pashtuns page. I am going to move this issue to the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if you persist in adding photos of non-Pashtun Indian actresses and remove photos of Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan. Thanks

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on this talk page and Pashtun talk page

How do you think we can help?

The Pashtuns page should have photos of all Pashtun that have reached high political positions. The photos Pashtun Presidents of Pakistan and Foriegn Minister are being deleted while Indian actor who may be ethnically Pashtun with non-Pashtun actresses is being added. While there are several photos of Afghan Pashtun Presidents. This page is about all Pashtuns not just Afghan Pashtuns.

Summary of dispute by Krzyhorse22

User:WikiBulova is being disruptive, he seems to have a problem with people from India. He appeared for the first time at this article and began removing the pictures of all the young famous Bollywood stars who have ethnic Pashtun background, which is well sourced and verified by editors in the past. Instead, he filled the article with bald headed old Pakistani men whos ethnicity cannot be verified. See --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns discussion

Hi there, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN. Taking a look at the talk page, I think I have a perspective on the situation here and some feedback, however I would like to hear from Krzyhorse22 before I open this up for further discussion. (Other volunteers, if I for some reason drop off the face of the earth for a day or two and the case still hasn't had any commentary, can this be closed as insufficient discussion? Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 00:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Krzyhorse22 Well ! The bald headed old man was a ethnic Pashtun and President of Pakistan while your pretty young Indian actresses are not Pashtuns. Last time I checked both ethnic Pashtun Afghan Presidents Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani were also bald old men. Have they grown hair and became younger lately ? WikiBulova (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright. let's cut this off right here. I'd like us to focus on the issue at hand rather than each other, so I will start by asking only for links to the relevant discussions where the previous infobox images were decided on, and the discussion where the change to these images was discussed and agreed on (and no other comments, please, solely these links). Thank you. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 01:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Steve, I apologize. Just our esteemed friend User:Krzyhorse22 commented about excluding bald headed old and adding the young famous Bollywood stars and just made sarcastic joke. I again apologize. Nonetheless, the article is about accomplished Pashtuns who speak Pashto and not a beauty contest of actors and actresses. WikiBulova (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for apologising, I hope we can keep things on track. That said, changes to Misplaced Pages do require a consensus among editors - it's what makes this site relatively stable, if we just make changes all over the place without discussing them, then well Misplaced Pages will become the mess that some members of the public think it is. Now, I imagine at one point there was a discussion regarding the original images in the infobox. I thank you for your comments, but at this time (as they are the advocate for keeping the infobox images the way they were) ask that WikiBulova point me to the original discussion/s where the infobox images were decided. Once we have that, I'll continue the discussion (I'd ask that comments apart from the ones I have asked for wait until after I've opened up this for more discussion). Thanks. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 02:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this discussion, Steve? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Took a glance at that, but it's a bit of a mess when I look at the discussion (a lot of insults, etc - definitely not the sort of decorum I expect.) I'll keep reading it over, thanks. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 02:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Honestly, I'm not following the actual technical problems of this discussion too closely. This dispute looks to have been enabled by a lack of respectful atmosphere on the article's talk page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The images in the infobox is not the issue. WikiBulova specifically removed the images of widely recognized Pashtuns who are from India (i.e., Shah Rukh Khan and Saif Ali Khan) from the article's body and replaced them with more Pakistani politicians (Sartaj Aziz and Ghulam Ishaq Khan). First, the Ghulam's image by policy is not allowed in the Pashtun article. Second, Sartaj Aziz's ethnicity is unproven and he is not widely recognized as Pashtun, it's word of mouth only. WikiBulova is doing WP:OR by claiming he is Pashtun. The basic rule is that we must first verify someone's ethnicity before adding such claim in the Pashtun article. This has been discussed many times in the article's talk page in the past. Third, WikiBulova doesn't like to see the two popular Indian actresses standing next to Shah Rukh Khan, who are often seen as lovers in Bollywood films. WikiBulova prefers an image with him being alone. Notice that in the same article Zalmay Khalizad appears with former U.S. President George W. Bush and Malala Yousefzai with current U.S. President Obama and his family but this didn't affect WikiBulova. Therfore, he clearly has a problem with people from India, meaning he is racist toward a particular group. I, on the other hand, think that having the two popular Indian actresses standing next to Shah Rukh Khan is helpful in the article because it expresses his popularity in India, in Bollywood films, and particularly with Indian women, the same way the expression of importance is given to Malala with Obama, Khalilzad with Bush at the White House, and Bacha Khan with Mahatma Gandhi. This obviously doesn't mean Obama, Bush and Gandhi are Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Pashtuns have been migrating and settling in Delhi Sultanate and later Mughal Empire for last 800 years. These Pashtun have lost their language and culture after few generations and have been assimilated in the local Urdu culture and are now known as Pathans. There is a clear distinction between Pashto speaking Pashtuns and non-Pashto speaking Pathans claiming Pashtun heritage but cannot speak Pashto language for many generations. There also people who also adopted Khan family name that does not mean they are Pashtuns. There are millions of Pathans in Pakistan and India. There can be two pages one for the Pashtuns who speak Pashto and other for the Pathans who have lost ability to speak Pashto for many generations. The people must make distinction between Pashtuns and Pathans which may be the cause of conflict here. The Pathans page is being redirected to Pashtuns page and it could resurrected for Pathan community of Pakistan and India. There are 31 million Pashtuns in Pakistan and only 13 million in Afghanistan and they are under represented in Pashtun page. I am not being racist, I am just indicating that Pashtun page should have photos of Pashtun people and Indian actors and actresses are not Pashtuns but could be Pathans. Why are Pashtuns from Pakistan are being Pakistanis while the Indian actors who can't even speak Pashto are being ethnic Pashtuns ? By the way, I don't see User:Krzyhorse22 apologising for his comment insulting bald old people. I would be making this report separately if it is not being discussed here. On personal note, My maternal family also claims to be Pashtuns but can't speak Pashto so they are Pathans but not Pashtuns. In the Shah Rukh Khan's page it clearly indicates he had Pathan father and Hyderabadi mother not clearly Pashtuns. The followings are URLs where Shah Rukh Khan claims to be Pathan and NOT Pashtuns. How SRK’s Pathan father fell in love with his South Indian mother Also look at these pages: Pathans of Punjab, Pathans of Rajasthan, Pathans of Uttar Pradesh, Pathans of Bihar, Pathans of Gujarat and Rohilla. Thsese are Pathans who claim Pashtun heritage. WikiBulova (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why you keep putting images of non-Pashto speaking Pakistanis (Ayun Khan, Sartaj Aziz, Ghulam Ishaq Khan) in Pashtun article? SRK's father was born and grew up in Peshawar, he was a Pashto-speaking ethnic Pashtun. SRK's father's father was from Afghanistan. They spoke Urdu? Maybe Chinese? Every native person of Peshawar speaks Pashto, they identify selves as "Pashtuns" (not Pathans). Pashtun ethnicity is inherited through father (not mother), and it is not defined by the use of Pashto language. There are a number of white Americans who learned Pashto and can speak it fluently (search in YouTube), are these white Americans Pashtuns? Why should I apologize for describing someone as a bald old Pakistani? Should I call him a young non-bald American instead?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You want to be accepted as reference in Misplaced Pages then let the Administrators decide it. There are also as you put it "bald old men" in the Pashtuns page like Bacha Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani but you only choose to insult Ghulam Ishaq Khan. If you want to accept all the Pathans as Pashtuns then you will have at least 80 million in Pakistan, 20 million in India, 13 Million in Afghanistan, 3 million in Bangladesh, etc. What do you think is the difference between words Pathan and Pashtun ? In India and Pakistan, Pathan is a person who speaks Urdu language and his ancestors may have been Pashtuns. Well, People learning second language is different from their mother tongue. Lets us look at the Rohilla Pashtuns, who were the last pure Pashtun dynasty in North India and were defeated and ethnically cleansed by the British and remaining later assimilated in Urdu speaking community. Rohillas were attacked by the neighbouring kingdom of Oudh, who also received assistance from the British East India Company forces under Colonel Alexander Champion. This conflict is known as the Rohilla War. When Hafiz Rahmat Khan Barech was killed, in April 1774, Rohilla resistance crumbled, and Rohilkhand was annexed by the kingdom of Oudh. Rohillas fled into the dense forests across the Ganges, and later began a guerilla war. In response, many Rohillas were hunted down by the troops of British East India company and subsequently scattered in the countryside. They settled in many small towns and cities. Charges of ethnic cleansing and genocide were brought against Warren Hastings of the East India Company, by Edmund Burke and were later taken up by Thomas Babington Macaulay. Rohilla even escaped to Nepal but British forced Nepal to extradite Rohilla Pashtuns. The whole of Rohilkhand (including Bareilly, Pilibhit and Shahjanpur) was surrendered to the East India Company by the treaty of November 10, 1801. That date marks the transformation of last remaining Pashtuns in Northern India into Pathans.

• Ayub Khan was born on 14 May 1907 in Rehana, a village in Hazara District. of the North-West Frontier Province of British India (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan). He belonged to the Tareen tribe of Pashtuns.
• Sartaj Aziz was born in 1929 in the Pashtun Kakakhel family in the Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. In the 1940s, Aziz was a young activist in the Muslim League-led Pakistan movement. Aziz was educated at Islamia College of Lahore and then obtained a Bachelor's degree in Economics from the Punjab University in 1949.
• Ghulam Ishaq Khan was born in Ismail Khel, a rural locality on the outskirts of Bannu District, both villages in the North-West Frontier Province of the British Indian Empire, now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. He was an ethnic Bangash Pashtun. His family remains active in politics; his son-in-law is former federal minister Anwar Saifullah Khan. A granddaughter of his is married to Omar Ayub Khan, who is the grandson of former military dictator Ayub Khan and son of politician Gohar Ayub Khan.

WikiBulova (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I know about these people more than you. It is undisputable fact that these were/are non-Pashto speaking Pakistanis. See here The population figures are only guesses, not allowed in Misplaced Pages. All Pakistanis use Urdu. Bottom line, to put someone in Pashtun article you must cite a reliable source where the ethnicity can be verified. Dead links cannot be used and doing WP:OR is not allowed. About the YouTube video, it has been used in his article for years. That's him explaining (clearly and in detail) to the world that his father's father was from Afghanistan, why don't you accept it?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

More than 91% Pakistani do not speak Urdu as mother tongue. It is used as national language since it was used as inter-community language since the British Raj in 1857. Languages in Pakistan are: Punjabi 44.17%, Pashto 15.44%, Sindhi 14.12%, Saraiki 10.42%, Urdu 7.59% and Balochi 3.59%. Languages of Pakistan. Actually the Indian actors and actresses are non-Pashto speaking Pathans and not Pashto Pashtuns. While in Afghanistan, Persian used as inter-community language and not Pashto. WikiBulova (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

References

1. "Muhammad Ayub Khan". Story of Pakistan. Archived from the original on 17 March 2010. Retrieved 29 April 2010.
2. Lyon, Peter (2008). Conflict between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-57607-712-2. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
3. Hussain, Rizwan (2005). Pakistan and the emergence of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 74. ISBN 978-0-7546-4434-7. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
4. Jaffrelot, Christophe (2004). A history of Pakistan and its origins. Anthem Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-84331-149-2. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
5. ^ "Senate of Pakistan – Sartaj Aziz". Senate of Pakistan. Retrieved 2010-09-05.
6. Profile of National Security Adviser (Profile of National Security Adviser). "Profile of National Security Adviser". Profile of National Security Adviser. Retrieved 15 May 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
7. Staff report (28 October 2006). "Obituary: Ghulam Ishaq Khan". Telegraph. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
8. Herald, Pakistan. "Ghulam Ishaq Khan". Press biographical sketch of Pakistan Herald. Pakistan Herald. Retrieved 19 October 2012.
9. Cite error: The named reference newPaper_dawn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

•  Volunteer note: Please cease from further engaging in a threaded discussion before this case is opened by a DRN volunteer. However, you may continue to discuss the issue in the talk page of the article constructively. (P.S. Personal attacks are not tolerated and will have this case closed). Regards—UY Scuti 18:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  There is no personal attack, I described the pictures of two individuals (not editors) who happen to be old and bald. How is that a personal attack?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

  There are also other photos of, as the User:Krzyhorse22 succinctly put it bald old men, in the Pashtuns page like Bacha Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, Hamid Karzai and Ashraf Ghani but he choose to insult only Ghulam Ishaq Khan. This clearly personal insult to all Bald Old Men WikiBulova (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  The photos of Bacha Khan, Gandhi, Karzai, and Ghani were not involved in this dispute. I called them bald old men so others can focus on which photos are disputed.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I'll take the case if we keep the discussion to the picture(s). We'll leave deciding exactly what a Pashtun is to all the editors of that page, and not just Krzyhorse and WikiBulova. Keep responses short and clear as possible, keep argumentative tone to a minimum. Respond within 48 hours of each post by the volunteer moderator, that should mean checking the DRN every day. Do all parties agree to these terms? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Agree. The ONLY thing needed is non-dead links to reliable sources explaining clearly that Sartaj Aziz (SA) and Ghulam Ishaq Khan (GIK) are in fact "Pashtuns". The Kakakhel (tribe) article is unsourced POV. Also, the GIK image in Pashtun article should be removed because it is not allowed by the fair use policy. See at the very bottom here.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Change of plans. Steve Crossin will be hosting the discussion as volunteer moderator. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. Haven't forgotten about this, just got a tad on today and will revisit this tomorrow. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 01:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Campus sexual assault
• Archived discussion page
• RFC (inconclusive)
• later discussion

Users involved

• Mattnad (talk · contribs)
• Nblund (talk · contribs)
• Aquillion (talk · contribs)
• Carwil (talk · contribs)
• VQuakr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the Campus sexual assault article a new study on campus sexual assault by the AAU was added. In that study, and picked up by multiple sources, was that the majority of respondents that the study said had been sexually assaulted did not report the event because "they didn't think it was serious enough to report". Nblund takes issue with including this detail and has several times removed it from the article despite it being covered by mainstream news sources such as the Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, and CNN. Even something that understates the level ("many" instead of "majority") has been removed by Nblund (while leaving in other reasons in the preceding sentence). Nblund has argued that its misleading and cites opinions written years before the AAU study that explain why women might say that, without meaning it the way a plain reading of the question might suggest. He or she wants to separate it from the AAU study section, keep it out of the lede, and will only permit it if there's a rebuttal.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed this at length, including an RFC (inconclusive), and later discussion

How do you think we can help?

Given that the RFC is inconclusive with few editors being interested in the topic, I'd like others to weigh in, either here or at the RFC to help decide a simple question. Can we include the AAU findings that the majority of respondents who were classified as victims of sexual assault didn't report it because they "didn't think it was serious enough to report."? I think it's fair to include that in the lede and attached to the section on the survey. Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nblund

As I stated in the RfC: I do not think that the finding needs to be left out of the article. I do think that that finding should only be mentioned in the context of the existing academic research on women's reasons for not reporting sexual victimization. There are two things that I think should be made clear to readers:

• This finding is not new or unique. The AAU finding is consistent with several decades of previous research on this topic, and it's misleading and unhelpful to fail to point this out.

• There has been peer reviewed research in to why women choose not to report their victimization to the police. Experts generally view this response as indicative of the difficulties women face in reporting sexual assault, and do not think it should be taken "at face value", as Mattnad suggests. I suggested that we could cite some of Bonnie Fisher's research to present the expert views of that finding.

Mattnad doesn't seem to dispute the veracity of either of these points, but instead has argued that including Fisher's work in relation to the AAU study would constitute "original research coattrack" because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was "fringe" work. However, as Carwil noted in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (page 36), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. Nblund (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aquillion

I've explained my feelings on this on the talk page, so I'll be brief about them here: I don't feel that most sources place the degree of significance on this particular statistic that Mattnad does. While it gets mentioned, it's usually one sentence amid an assortment of different factoids from the study; by comparison, most articles lead with the overarching figure on prevalence of sexual assault (which is, after all, the main conclusion of the study.) Putting it in the lead the way Mattnad is suggesting is artificially forcing an equal weight on two things that are clearly not weighted equally in the sources, and clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that most sources have not treated as so significant. Mattnad says that "it has been covered" by many sources; but the weighting and tone within those sources is also important to pay attention to. As far as I can tell, none of them (aside from one editorial) have given it any significant weight. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Carwil

My involvement in this dispute began with the RfC posted in October. In my view, a question of policy and guidelines underlies this dispute at all stages, namely how best to identify reliable sources. Mattnad has put forward requests on the basis that multiple reliable sources (newspaper articles covering the 2015 Campus Climate Survey) should frame the article's use of the underlying study, which was produced by academics in a rigorous, fact-checking manner, though perhaps not subject to peer review. In my estimation, "The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the … researchers' published findings." This follows from the guidance at WP:NEWSORG.

Delving a bit more into the substance of the dispute, there is the question of whether, and how much, to highlight a follow-up question asked to students who did not report their rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Such students reported a number of reasons, the most frequent of which is the incident was "not serious enough to report." My read on the cause of the dispute is that external writers (including the oft-cited Stuart Taylor, an expert with a different view on the importance of campus sexual assault) have built a point-of-view around the non-serious nature of most assaults reported in survey data, and that this one survey result is intended to back up that POV.

This page is deluged by trench warfare on this point, and editors are thereby sidetracked from their role of fully describing the extent and nature of campus sexual assault, as well as the reasons for non-reporting. There's more material in the 2015 CCS that isn't on the page, and an abundant peer-reviewed research literature (including the much-mentioned but hardly used Fisher 2003 article) on the subject of survivor's reporting decisions that could and should be included on the page.

In my view, the next step should be to flesh out the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section with more of the results from that survey, and to create a section summarizing the literature on non-reporting. Fisher 2003's and Stuart Taylor's positions can be summarized in this new section.

The "not serious enough to report" survey response simply isn't so important as to need to be in the lead right now.--Carwil (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been considerable recent discussion at the talk page, and proper notice, so that this case can be opened by a volunteer. There was an RFC, which has not been formally closed but has expired, and does not prevent discussion here. The RFC was not concisely worded and attracted little comment. Either discussion here or rewording the RFC neutrally with better publicity might be appropriate. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note 2: I'm a bit concerned that we do not provide the kind of service expected by the filing party based upon his answer to the "How do you think we can help" question. What we do here is, per the header, "we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" or, in short, we facilitate discussion between the parties. Volunteers here may, if they choose, close a case by offering an opinion when there is a clear single outcome set by policy but that's just one volunteer's opinion and only applies in the most clear-cut of cases. In short, if all Mattnad is looking for is additional people to weigh in then this isn't the place to obtain that and he should consider withdrawing this request; on the other hand, if he feels that there's still a possibility that he and the responding party might work it out with some additional supervised discussion, then he's in the right place. What do you say, Mattnad? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Pinged for comment: I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the "compromise" offered by Nblund is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Misplaced Pages around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough."Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. Let's see if the responding editor chooses to participate. (Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and never mandatory.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and stop trying to re-insert the disputed material in to the lead paragraph of the entry until some kind of consensus is reached. It's hard to tell what changes are being discussed when the status quo keeps moving.

I think Robert McClenon's proposal for a new round of RfC's may be a better basis for generating consensus, and I think a lack of eyeballs on the page is part of the root problem. That said: it seems like we have talked past each other on the nature of the dispute, and I think confusion over the nature of the dispute made the previous round of RfCs less productive than they could have been. Is it outside the scope of this process to ask for a mediated discussion simply to clarify the dispute itself, with the goal of creating a more productive round of RfCs? Nblund (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We could try another RFC, but I'm fine just adding the reporting on the finding (per AP as a mainstream reliable source) and in the spirit of NPOV the WaPo interpretation (with appropropriate mention of the source). Fisher has made her career around sexual assault, but for the benefit of the other editors here, the DOJs bureau of justice statistic has found 0.61% annual incidence for college students which is lower than the numbers reported in Fisher's research. The gap between the two stems in part from the broader definitions used by Fisher which many students don't think are as serious as Fisher thinks they are. Also, per Nblund's own sources, part of the disagreement in interpretation comes from feminist opinion, which is fine to include, but does not disqualify other views.

So, what I've been seeking is NPOV balance, where it belongs per the sources - with the AAU study section.Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note 3: After an inquiry on my user talk page, I've taken a look at the discussion and added and notified three parties who have been involved in the recent discussion. I don't think that they're absolutely necessary parties to this case going forward, but they ought to be given a chance to participate if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update: VQuakr has indicated at her/his user talk page that s/he does not care to participate here, which should not affect whether or not a volunteer opens the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Participant Comment: I'm fine with this finding not being in the lede, but in the particular section related to the AAU study from where it came. However, Nblund has argued against this, saying it's common to most studies, so it would be undue to put in that section. She and Carwil refer heavily to Bonnie Fisher whom they have cited as an expert and one of the AAU study designers to support this argument. However, a direct quote from Fisher says otherwise. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” . I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". However Nblund has taken the position that Fisher's plain English quote in the Washinton post is "unverified" and contradicted by Nblund's interpretation of a general statement from the study. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that Nblund is interpreting Misplaced Pages guidelines correctly and perhaps not discussing this in good faith.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Gebel el-Silsila

Procedural close for three reasons. First, the other editor hasn't been notified of this filing. Second, this case, as filed, was very badly malformed. I have tried to correct this, but have done enough work correcting this filing so that I don't feel like notifying the other editor. Third, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but it wasn't about article content. My advice is to discuss article content on the article talk page. If there is discussion on the talk page but it doesn't resolve the content issues, the editors may refile here without prejudice. Persistent incivility may be reported at WP:ANI. Closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template talk:Criticism of religion sidebar#Non-religion critics entries (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs)
• Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some editors want to remove people who are clearly critics of religion. People like A. C. Grayling, Sanal Edamaruku, Meera Nanda and Tarek Fatah have clearly criticised various religions in their books, but even then a couple of editors wish to remove them from the list. I would like them to be included in the list. I am requesting dispute resolution so that we can decide once and for all which person to involve and whom to exclude(if there are any exclusions). The debate on talkpage seems to be going nowhere as the editor in question will not even respond to my arguments. A while ago I discussed the exclusion of A. C. Grayling and got him back, but now others are being excluded without any reason given on the talkpage.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to initiate something on the talkpage when Grayling was excluded, he was included due to discussion. Response to recent exclusions seems to be nill. Instead of discussing the editor in question went into revert-mode

How do you think we can help?

This dispute can be resolved by deciding once and for all whom to include and whom to exclude. As the editors removing these people will not listen to me perhaps an uninvolved volunteer will have a better chance.

Summary of dispute by Capitals00

Completely disregarding this forum shopping, A. C. Grayling was included already, and these issues have been already solved on talk page as most editors support present version and supported by WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP. Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by D4iNa4

Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries discussion

Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting sources (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs)
• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Zoupan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I don't believe the following: "Kone was born in Tirana, Albania, to an ethnic Greek family" is supported by the source, in which the subject is being quoted as having said: "I still have relatives in Albania, they're all Greek." This, I argue is a conjectural interpretation of the subjects declaration. I also argue that the quote is a mistranslation of the original source in Italian (see contradicting sources on the talk page). Further, I propose removing "in Albania" from "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania", because it's again a conjectural interpretation of the source; it implies he meant that he hasn't faced any discrimination because he was born in Albania, but according to the source, he declared "I have never denied my origin, but in Greece I haven't been discriminated". It's not up to us to put a meaning to Kone's words, thus "he has never faced dscrimination in Greece because of his origin" would be more in line with what he actually said.

Determine whether the entries in question are original research, and if the explanation I give regarding the conflicting sources is valid.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards.

How do you think we can help?

Determine whether the entry in question contains original research, and if the explanation I've provided regarding the conflicting sources is valid.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources discussion

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards