Revision as of 08:47, 14 April 2019

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 11:46, 11 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:Reverse racism

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Reverse racism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)
• Scoundr3l (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two-part issue, where another user and I are at loggerheads over (1) whether "reverse discrimination" is a legitimate alternative name for this article, to be placed in bold in the first sentence, and (2) whether the article shows systemic bias requiring use of the {{globalize}} template.

I've pointed out that "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence of the first paragraph", and that multiple published sources treat "reverse discrimination" as a synonym of "reverse racism", i.e. a "significant alternative name" for the topic. Scoundr3l says this is too ambiguous, given that another article has Reverse discrimination as its title.

For the "Globalize" issue, I've pointed out that sources describing the topic focus on the U.S., and that the article should reflect these sources per Due and undue weight. I don't think one user's unproven hunch that the article is plagued by systemic bias is enough reason to indefinitely deface the article with a cleanup tag. Systemic bias is by definition not a question of this or that article being skewed; it's about the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors and under-representing those topics for which reliable sources are not easily available (i.e. online) or available in English. Well, part of the answer to that is to seek out alternative sources. I've asked several times (1st) (2nd) (3rd) (4th) for published sources that describe non-U.S. viewpoints, but none have been provided. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I think I have exhausted the possibilities of talk page discussion given that my repeated requests for information have been largely ignored. Scoundr3l has twice listed the dispute at WP:3O, but no one decided to take up the issue, and the listing was removed. How do you think we can help? I think moderation from an experienced user would help all parties articulate their concerns more clearly in order to arrive at a solution based on Misplaced Pages's core content policies.

Summary of dispute by Scoundr3l

(1) Regarding the alt title: "Reverse discrimination" is the subject of another article. As far as anyone can tell, that article covers the only definition of the term. I asked for clarification on the scope of the article. Sangdeboeuf replied with the opinion that the two terms have similar, but different scopes. I agreed. I attempted to remove the alt title and further define the article "reverse racism" to differentiate it from the "reverse discrimination" article. Those changes were reverted and Sangdeboeuf seems to have contradicted the previous opinion by now insisting they are the same thing. My position is that using it as an alt title on the "reverse racism" page is needlessly ambiguous, even if some sources do, because it's the same term covered by the other article. In the best interest of the readers, the articles should attempt to disambiguate them.

Note: there is an ongoing merge proposal for the two articles, which we've both participated in, as well as a merge suggestion that was closed as "Keep".

(2) Regarding the globalize tag: This was added by me because I feel that that lede of the article almost exclusively discusses US politics, despite the article having relevant subsections for the US and abroad. I think the lede should summarize the worldview, as much as possible, and the US can be discussed in detail in its relevant subsection. I made that clear in my discussion and I offered open-ended suggestions for how we could begin improvements. Sangdeboeuf's response has been nothing short of hostile. They've made no attempt to understand or engage in the issue, answer simple questions, or participate. Their stance has been "I disagree", which I can't be expected to account for, but I expect any reasonable editor could see a good faith effort to begin working on improvements. After one of the many removals of the template without action or engagement, a 3rd party editor re-added the tag and Sangdeboeuf still insists on removing it without discussion.

After it became evident that this was not a collaborative environment, I sought out a 3O twice. No responders. Participation in the article is low and probably hasn't been encouraged by stonewalling and ownership-like behavior. The only 3rd party participation so far was the re-addition of the globalize template.

Talk:Reverse racism discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: Would you be able to open this one up? MrClog (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will try to facilitate discussion. I have opinions on this subject, but will keep my personal opinions in check, because I have an even stronger opinion that Misplaced Pages needs to present the neutral point of view on issues where many people are not neutral. Please read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and especially in contentious areas. Overly long posts do not help to resolve issues, although they make the poster feel better, so be concise. Discuss article content only, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve the article.

Will each editor please state, in one or at most two paragraphs, what the issues are? I understand that there may be a suggestion to merge this article with reverse discrimination, but that should be outside the scope of this discussion, because there is a consensus-based procedure for merge discussions. Is there an issue about defining the scope of the topic and the article? If so, please state it concisely. If there are other content issues, please state them concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Yes, first and foremost there is an issue of scope. Presently, the article does not define what 'reverse racism' is. It begins immediately by contextualizing how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates, which is inadequate, if not incorrect, as a definition. The source themselves state that the concept dates back to the Reconstruction era and it is often used outside of those contexts, such as bloc voting discussions. I offered instead to define it as situations where "typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged groups." This definition is modeled after the one in Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society and similar (but distinct) from the definition used at reverse discrimination. That will allow us to set the scope of the two articles apart and discuss the broader subject outside of the American Affirmative Action debate (though it can still be discussed with due weight). And finally, the alt title is unnecessary and confusing, probably owing to those scope issues. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'll reiterate what I wrote above, minus the "globalize" issue, since that discussion was closed by an uninvolved user.

  The issue, as I see it, is that since multiple published sources treat the terms reverse discrimination and reverse racism as equivalent, both terms should be given in the lead section or paragraph per WP:OTHERNAMES, preferably in bold text. Whether a separate article with the title Reverse discrimination exists is irrelevant; anyone can create an article with any title. We should simply follow what sources say, and use hatnotes or a disambiguation page to deal with any ambiguity as needed.

  In terms of the article's scope, I think it's preferable to give context up front rather than just the literal meaning of the words reverse racism, precisely because it's a non-neutral term (à la white genocide or great replacement). The crucial points to cover are that (1) it's a concept used as a political strategy, and (2) it specifically refers to anti-white discrimination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• The worldview of the article is still an issue. The globalize discussion that was closed was off-topic conversation about the inclusion of the tag, not really useful to anyone. As the issue was already in DRN, there's no value in re-opening it, but that doesn't mean the issue has disappeared or been resolved. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Editorial comment: Do not reply to the posts of other editors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The parties are here because they are presumably requesting facilitation because back-and-forth discussion merely restated the two sides.

Is there agreement that there is a scope issue? I am neutral, but I see a definition issue at the beginning, which is that the topic is reverse racism, but there is no initial definition of what is meant by racism in the first place. Do we need to start by defining racism? Please answer in one paragraph.

Can each party provide a one-paragraph (preferably two or three sentences) proposed lede paragraph? Provide this separately from the answer to the above.

There have been comments about a global view. I can see that the concept of reverse racism is likely to be different in different countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, India. Will each of the editors please comment in one paragraph about whether they think that the article needs to be expanded to be global? If yes, is it currently focused on the United States?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• A lot of sources take for granted that "reverse racism" is self explanatory, at least within the context they are discussing, so they don't bother to specifically define it. But it does need to be defined for our article. I don't think we necessarily need to define 'racism' in this article, but we should at least link to that article, if possible.

  My proposed lede:

  Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism.

  If it's too wordy, we can cut down on some of the "or"s. I've also offered to include "concept" or "In political discourse," in the lede sentence, as part of our previous discussion.

  Regarding worldview, the article is presented as universal, but focused almost exclusively on the US. It relies too heavily on sources discussing American politics and makes little effort to present the term outside that context. By last estimate, 6 of the 7 sentences in the lede mentioned the US specifically, either in text or piped link. This is excessive considering it repeats a lot of what's already in the US subsection. Similar discussions have been brought up about India on the Reverse Discrimination talk page. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure there is any problem with the article's scope. Giving a simple definition of racism in the lead section would only confuse matters in my view, because (A) racism does not easily fit under a single definition, and (B) the topic is not a form of racism at all, according to the sources. This is explained in the second paragraph of the lead.

  I think the existing lead paragraph, Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is a concept often associated with conservative social movements that portrays affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality as a form of anti-white racism, whereby gains by racial minorities result in harms to the white majority, gives a workable definition of the topic and places it in the appropriate context. It could probably be broken into parts to avoid a run-on sentence, though.

  I think the article already represents a global worldview as represented by the existing sources. Most of the high-quality sources I've seen focus on the US, so that's where the article should also focus. I think any expansion needs to be justified with published sources (I haven't seen any sources that specifically discuss the concept of "reverse racism" in India). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

Hmmm. It appears that one editor is basically satisfied with the definition, the scope, and the globality, and the other editor thinks that the definition should be revised and the article should provide more information about the problem outside the United States. Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on the definitional statement? Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on including or not including other countries? Are there any other issues that need to be discussed and are not being discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

• My last edit to the page, adding "whereby gains by racial minorities result in harms to the white majority", was an attempt to incorporate the other editor's concerns in defining the scope of the topic. I'm open to further compromise if it can be shown to be faithful to published sources. Ditto for including other countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
• Naturally willing to compromise, but I'd need details on the proposed compromise. I'd also ask Sangdeboeuf to stop editing the lede while it's under discussion as it's making it difficult to characterize what we're talking about and it's introducing more errors. The only thing that doesn't appear to be addressed is the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

I don't see any editing of the lede since we started discussion. (If I did, I would fail this discussion, because the mediation rules state that no one shall edit the article while discussion is in progress, but it appears that the editors have read that.)

Since it appears that the editors are making some progress toward compromise, I will change the rules and encourage the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion as to the wording of the lede sentence for four days or so.

Are there any other issues that the editors think need to be resolved? As to whether to tag the article, we already know that we do not want the article tagged. If it needs improvement, it should be improved here, rather than tagged as needing improvement.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

• As stated, I'm satisfied with the contents of the current lead sentence, though happy to entertain other suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• this change was introduced since the discussion started. I'm genuinely curious which of the concerns it was meant to address as it doesn't add a definition, worldview, or address the alt title. It's just a tossing of the word salad. It's also factually inaccurate as it needlessly introduced "racial minority" and "white majority" which are not requisite to reverse racism (see: South Africa). We've engaged in a back and forth since mid February and come no closer to a compromise than when this began. If we could have resolved this by now, I'm sure we both would have. What we really need is a third opinion. It's also unclear what you mean by "tag" in regards to the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't add a definition". It describes the scope of the subject according to those who use the term. What other definition would you like to include? As to the majority/minority issue, you may have a point; what if we just said "white people"/"black people" instead? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

I stated the ground rules on 28 March. They said not to edit the article. The lede sentence was tweaked on 29 March. How do you expect to arrive at a compromise if you are ignoring the mediation instructions?

I suggest the use of a Request for Comments. Will each side please state what their version of the lede sentence should be. Please also identify any other issues.

Fifth statements by editors

• That was an oversight on my part that was nonetheless intended as a compromise edit. I even said as much under "Third statements by editors" above. However, if an RfC is recommended I'd be fine with that as well.

  I think the existing lead sentence is good but could be split into two, such as Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements and perceptions that social and economic gains by black people in the U.S. and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• To reiterate the issues: (1) the current lede sentence is not a definition. It's inadequate to handle the most basic uses of the word, such as "To vote for a Negro only because he is a Negro would be reverse racism" -Jackie Robinson, New York Times, discussing bloc voting. Or "Accusations of 'reverse racism' haunt an American professor" -The Economist, discussing tweets by Sarah Jeong. The over-reliance on the wording of only a few sources (and ignoring others) has needlessly skewed the scope of the article in favor of one preferred context, at the expense of others. There's no reason to try to make the article fit into a definition if it doesn't fit. It's not the definition.

  My proposed lede:

  Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism.

  This definition fits all appropriate uses of the term, including those used by the AA sources, and still provides context for how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates. Providing an adequate definition is not an issue of neutrality. The term means what it means and there are no "non-neutral" exceptions to NPOV.

  Second (2) is the alt title. The purpose of alt titles is to ensure coverage of all significant names for the article content, and vice versa. The subject of "reverse discrimination" is already covered. Using this alt title means we now have two articles about "reverse discrimination". As you said, there is a consensus-based procedure for merging articles. That proposal has already been rejected and it appears that it may be rejected again. This bypasses the process by disrupting the scope of another article. Alt title should be removed if and until consensus changes for a merger.

  RfC wouldn't be my first choice. After all, this is just a disagreement between two editors. I feel like it's already been protracted enough. But if nobody else is willing to offer their opinion here, it'll do. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

Okay. If the editing of the article after moderated discussion started was an innocent mistake, the editors can resume trying to talk to each other about a proposed lede that will be acceptable to both parties. I will observe and let there be back-and-forth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

I would refer to my latest comment where I propose a slightly modified lead paragraph. Otherwise I'm satisfied with the lead paragraph as it stands. Will entertain any alternative suggestions.

Meanwhile, what should we do about problematic edits like this one, which introduce questionable content into the lead section? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• With all due respect, we've both already stated our issues, our proposals, and our reasoning several times now and they don't appear to have changed much. If we could have resolved this with back-and-forth, we would have done it on the talk thread that began in February and we wouldn't need dispute resolution. Just for the sake of variety, I think we should hear what you think and then I'm sure we'll have better luck coming to an accord with some new information rather than just repeating this all over again. As for the new edit, it doesn't appear related to this conversation. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Scoundr3l: true, talk page discussion went nowhere, which is why I brought the issue to this more structured forum. Do you have nothing to add about my latest proposal? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the last edit was not related to this discussion, as Scoundr3l says, I've removed the questionable material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

.

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War#2006 Lancet paper (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Darouet (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)
• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs)
• Jrheller1 (talk · contribs)
• Mr Ernie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns how Misplaced Pages should present the number of Iraqi Casualties of the Iraq War. Editors at the article appear to agree that epidemiological surveys are the most robust method for determining the number of casualties that have occurred in a war zone, and these are available for the Iraq War. However, there are five major epidemiological studies of mortality resulting from the Iraq War, and these have different findings. Three studies have produced higher estimates (Lancet 2004; Lancet 2006; ORB 2008), one has produced a lower estimate (IFHS 2008), and one has produced an intermediate estimate (PLOS Medicine 2013).

Two editors, User:Snooganssnoogans and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, argue that available scientific commentary demonstrates that the Lancet 2004 and Lancet 2006 studies are contested and probably unreliable, and have placed text in the lead of the article stating that these studies "are disputed in the scientific community."

Three editors, User:Thucydides411, User:Jrheller1 and myself User:Darouet argue that available scientific commentary shows that the Lancet 2004, Lancet 2006 and PLOS 2013 studies are instead the most reliable, and that the lead text is misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There are an abundance of sources and a long history of talk page discussion all of which have not resolved this dispute. Those discussions have included this recent one , and other discussions on the talk page and in the archives.

How do you think we can help?

I have had good experiences with dispute resolution in the past, where level-headed and experienced volunteers have required all participants to base their arguments in available sources and to permit both compromise and progress. There is good evidence that editors in this dispute are intelligent, interested in the subject, and can therefore contribute to a strong article that adheres to sources.

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

The section on the Lancet study is an extremely comprehensive summary of the academic debate surrounding the study. The section is lengthy because the study is extremely notable and controversial in the field/topic of war death estimates. The section contains both criticism and praise for the study. Unlike Thucydides11, who has repeatedly sought to remove every single study criticizing the Lancet study, I have fully welcomed all studies that hold a favorable view of the Lancet study and would never dream of removing relevant peer-reviewed research under any circumstance. The simple fact is that academics dispute the Lancet study: many recognized experts say it's deeply flawed whereas other recognized experts praise it. Even the lead author of the Lancet study, Gilbert Burnham, later published an article which revised the old estimate, producing a far lower estimate of war deaths. I cannot emphasize just how bizarre it is to describe criticism of the Lancet study as fringe when not even the lead author of the Lancet study stands by the Lancet study anymore.

There are several claims made by Thucydides11 below that are false or misplaced. First, the claim that the section solely cites one scholar who disputes the Lancet study is false; by my count, there are at least 28 recognized experts cited in the section as critiquing the Lancet study, most of whom are published in peer-reviewed academic outlets. This includes giants in the field of quantitative social science and conflict research, such as Andrew Gelman, Lars-Erik Cederman and Nils Petter Gleditsch. Second, the claim that citation counts reflect WP:DUE is misplaced, given that damning critiques of popular studies rarely get anywhere close to the same citations as the popular studies. For example, Ashworth et al. points out rudimentary methodology errors in Pape's 'Strategic Logic of Terrorism', yet Pape's article has been cited 20x more. Broockman and Kalla's exposure of LaCour's fraudulent study ended LaCour's career, yet LaCour's study has been cited 2x more (despite the immediate debunking). What matters is whether content is by recognized experts or published in peer-reviewed academic outlets, not whether it's been cited a bunch. Furthermore, the 2008 critique of the Lancet study was awarded "article of the year" by the Journal of Peace Research, clearly demonstrating that this is not some minor insignificant quibble that somehow got past peer-review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411

The article should reflect the scientific consensus, with minority views receiving less weight. One tool for establishing what the scientific community thinks of the various studies is to look at citation counts. Snooganssnoogans and TheTimesAreAChanging have objected to this method, but citation counts are an important measure of how other scientists view a work. The 2006 Lancet study, by Burnham et al., has been cited over 700 times (). Snooganssnoogans has objected that famous junk studies (such as the notorious MMR vaccine-autism study) can also rack up large numbers of citations. In order to make sure that Burnham et al. is not simply "notorious," Darouet went through the most highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. If Burnham et al. is junk, then those papers should say so. Instead, the three most highly cited paper that cite Burnham et al. do not criticize it (Wang et al. (2016), Adhikari et al. (2010), Kassebaum et al. (2015)). A relatively recent survey article in Annual Reviews (a well respected, high-impact journal), Levy & Sidel (2016), directly states that "these studies have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians". That establishes the dominant scientific view on the subject.

So what does our article say? The lede first lists a range of casualty estimates, and then refers to "Other estimates, which are disputed in the scientific community, such as the 2006 Lancet study". Yet the 2006 Lancet study is referred to by the Annual Reviews survey as "the most rigorous". The lede sets out a dichotomy, between "disputed" estimates and those which are, by contrast, not disputed. This dichotomy does not exist, and if anything, goes in the opposite direction - the Burnham et al. study is actually considered one of the most rigorous estimates, not one of the least. How does Snooganssnoogans justify making this dichotomy? By citing, over and over again, criticisms published by the same researcher, Michael Spagat (Snooganssnoogans disputes this, but we can go through the sources one-by-one). These criticisms routinely have low citation counts, yet they utterly dominate the section on Burnham et al. (six of the seven paragraphs), and are additionally scattered throughout other sections of the article. Michael Spagat alone is mentioned by name a stunning 29 times throughout the article. This is completely out of proportion to the reception he has received in the scientific community, as evidenced by citation counts, how highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. view the study, and what review articles on the subject state.

If you want an idea of what I think is appropriate, take a look at this diff: a neutral lede, and a short description in the section on Burnham et al. about how review articles characterize the study.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging

For the record, I used to accept the 2006 Lancet survey and credit Snooganssnoogans with changing my mind on that topic. (See, e.g., "Moreover, the Lancet estimates for Iraq War deaths are probably valid"—TheTimesAreAChanging, December 1, 2016.) While the study has many critics, I now agree with Darouet and Thucydides411 that singling it out for criticism in the lede is not appropriate. However, Thucydides411 recently deleted 23,000 bytes of sourced text from Casualties of the Iraq War, including both criticism and strong support for the Lancet. As I explained on the talk page, this large-scale deletion did not seem constructive to me because it removed all consideration of the relative merits of the Lancet and IFHS studies in favor of a short general summary from two review articles, one of which is more than a decade old. I do not wish to continue edit warring with Thucydides411 and Darouet, who I respect as much as I respect Snooganssnoogans, but I contend that a significant amount of the content that Thucydides411 deleted had encyclopedic value and that his edit went well beyond "trimming Spagat," as he might put it. If you compare the two versions, you'll see that the scope of the purge is rather dramatic, with the subsection dedicated to the 2006 Lancet study being reduced from one of the largest in the article to one of the shortest, in keeping with Thucydides411's stated preference to devote roughly comparable coverage to all estimates of Iraq War casualties rather than devoting significantly more space to the Lancet in particular. As mentioned, I don't want to keep edit warring the 23,000 bytes of content back into and out of the article, but I would have preferred a more measured approach than simply deleting all criticism of the Lancet. I had previously created a paragraph detailing Tirman et al.'s defense of the relative merits of the Lancet study versus the IFHS study in an attempt to balance the article, but with SPECIFICO dropping out of the discussion and Mr. Ernie joining Darouet, Thucydides411, and Jrheller1 it appears that the numerical balance has now shifted in favor of the other side in this dispute, and it's not clear how amenable this new bloc will be to a compromise in light of Darouet's and Jrheller1's determination that all academic criticism of the Lancet is FRINGE and UNDUE respectively.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jrheller1

I agree with Thucydides411's assessment. I attempted to edit the article in July 2018 to remove some of the excessive Spagat references, but they were immediately edit-warred back by Snooganssnoogans. Since then, Snoogans has continued to add still more Spagat material.

Spagat and his co-workers have enough publications and mentions by mainstream media that there could be a separate article about their work. But their work should only be mentioned in passing in "Casualties of the Iraq War" so that it does not distract the reader from the viewpoint of the majority of experts that must be presented by "Casualties of the Iraq War". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie

I will not be able to participate in this DR, due to RL circumstances the next 2 weeks. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper discussion

The necessary preconditions have been met, because there has been discussion at the talk page, and notice has been given.

Is this a dispute where the parties are seeking assistance in reaching a compromise, or is the dispute an A-B (this or that) question? If it is the latter. a Request for Comments is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We're seeking assistance in reaching a compromise. There are some very basic issues (e.g., "What is the dominant scientific view on the 2006 Lancet study?") that we disagree on at the moment. Going through these questions in a structured manner would help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thanks for your question: I don't think this will be resolved through a simple this-or-that RfC. The question of how to accord due weight to comments critical of the dominant Lancet epidemiological surveys, and how to describe those surveys themselves, involves many aspects of this article. For this reason dispute resolution would be preferred.

Mr Ernie would you like to be included in this process or would you rather recuse yourself? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by interim moderator

I will try to get some progress made on this. Please read the rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I don't know anything about this dispute other than that there is a war and wars have casualties. I understand that there are five studies. Is there a question about how much weight to give to each study? Can the conclusions of each study simply be stated without trying to rank them? Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph statement of the issues, within 48 hours? Do not comment on each other's statements. Address your comments to me and so to the community.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

.

Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PiCo (talk · contribs)
• Wiqi55 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute has been ongoing since 30/31 January. It involves myself and one other user, User:Wiqi55. At issue is the last sentence in the lead, which in my version would note how the story of Dhul Qarnayn entered the Quran (through Greek legends current at the time the Quran was written) and Wiqi55's favoured version, which would avoid that question entirely in favour of saying that "similarities" have been observed. I assume this is in order to keep open the possibility that Allah dictated the Quran to Mohammed, but Wiqi55 has never given a view on his motives. Instead he frames his concerns in terms of reliable sources: I have an eminent folklorist and historian, Peter Bietenholz, who states explicitly that the DQ story had its origins in the Greek legends of Alexander the Great, while Wiqi55 has a slew of sources speaking of similarities but not direct origins - they don't, of course, deny that the Alexander stories were the origin, they simply don't address that issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None yet.

How do you think we can help?

You can help decide (a) whether Buitenholz is a reliable source (I don't deny that Wiqi55's sources are reliable), and give an opinion on whether the article would be improved by a mention of the origins of the Dhul-Qarnayn story (other than the dictation of Allah, of course).

Summary of dispute by Wiqi55

This dispute is not about the general reliability of Bietenholz (1994), but whether his statement constitutes an exceptional claim.

Bietenholz states that a Syrian version of the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes found its way in the Quran.. However, recent scholarship refer instead to the Syriac Alexander Legend -- an original Syriac work not based on the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes. The Syriac Legend is usually dated between 629-630AD, roughly at the same time as the Quran. It is also missing major motifs like the Dhu-al-Qarnayn epithet. Because of these dating problems and missing motifs several historians reject its influence on the Quran or present it as a "hypothesis". I quoted three experts, two are widely-cited with books devoted to Alexander in the Arabic tradition (Bannon Wheeler, Stephen Gero, and Faustina Doufikar-Aerts). Considering that there is a serious dispute among experts on this matter, we should avoid asserting Bietenholz's opinion as fact. Wiqi 21:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Proper notice has been given. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by interim moderator

I will try to get some progress made on this dispute. Please read the rules and follow the rules. I have read the article once, but don't know anything about this except that the subject is a figure of Islamic legend (with some counterpart in other legends and in Christian scripture, but that is probably not important). I have not read the Quran; to the extent that it is relevant, I expect the editors to state what it says. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is as to what the article should say? Be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

.

Talk:Bell Let's Talk

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Bell Let's Talk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Arbitrarycomplexity (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Jaobar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page appears to be actively guarded against NPOV by a professor (Jaobar) who works in media research. Clearly, we are required to assume good faith, but there have been several concerns raised about the content on the page, and the source of the majority of the content as being Bell-owned media stations. For reference, this user's students wrote much of the initial copy. The page has been the subject of minor edit warring over the past few months.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a talk on the talk page which ended relatively amicably though without a real consensus as to the legitimacy of the sources. Since then, another user has attempted to clean up Bell-cited content and had their edits reverted repeatedly. It seems this cycle is likely to continue in the future, and that any attempt to maintain NPOV will be reverted.

How do you think we can help?

A clear-headed third party can take a new look at the sourcing and the disputes surrounding this page and provide valuable feedback on what rules it may or may not be breaking and provide a path forward.

Summary of dispute by Drmies

While I appreciate the attempt, I think the dispute here boils down to something relatively simple: how much content can legitimately be based on primary sourcing when there's a likely COI involved as well. Given the edit warring, we may well see different approaches. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jaobar

Greetings. Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on this issue. I should say this is my first opportunity to experience the dispute resolution process. This looks quite interesting, and certainly appreciate your time and patience.

I should clarify, in response to comments stated below, I am not engaging in "protectorship". I am aware of and fully support the importance of WP:OWN. If the community decides that the content does not meet Misplaced Pages policy, I will support the consensus. To this point, I have not agreed with the justifications provided for the edits, including unfair and unjustified suggestions of COI, which is the reason for the current disagreement. I have seen members of the community using COI as an "argument-ender" before, in place of fair and accurate assessment, which is one of the reasons for this continued debate.

I find the COI label, in this context, inaccurate and unfair. When the community watches against marketers editing corporate pages that is one thing. To use the same criticism in this context, simply because a new editor uploads a local picture is again, inaccurate and unfair. Conflict of interest suggests that the individual with the conflict is unable to assess something fairly because of that conflict. Our assessments of COI should be subtle enough to see the difference. I should add that the COI label, unless I'm mistaken, is being applied to a few sentences and a picture.

This debate began because Bell Let's Talk is controversial. A consensus was reached to label it an advertising campaign. Now we have progressed to a debate about whether the use of any internal sources is appropriate, even if the article contains multiple external sources. It was my understanding, unless I'm incorrect, that some internal sources are allowed under WP:VERIFY. Perhaps I am wrong about this; however, in my experience, I see internal sources cited all the time (as long as they are complemented by external sources). I sometimes use Truthiness in class, and after a brief review, even this feature article has some internal sources. So indeed, the community does accept this practice even in its best articles.

So, to be specific, labelling Bell_Let's_Talk#Post-secondary_outreach evidence of COI, and in violation of WP:V and as a result WP:NPOV, a section that can't be more than 200 words in an article that is more than 3,000, seems excessive. I assume that one of the reasons internal sources are sometimes allowed is that there is no other source. That seems reasonable to me, as long as these are complemented by external sources, which is the case in this article.

Of course I would support removing some of the Bell references, as well as some of the other internal references, as I agree that external sourcing is preferred.

I hope that you will agree the COI label is unfair and inaccurate. I also hope you will agree that Bell_Let's_Talk#Post-secondary_outreach adds an important dimension to the article. If the latter must be cut, that is fine, but to justify the edit because of COI is inaccurate, in my opinion. If it must be cut because of WP:VERIFY I understand. As noted at the beginning, I fully support WP:OWN and will not and have not "protected" the article. I simply do not agree with the arguments presented, and if my knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy is accurate, it suggests that both myself and the editors I am debating are equal in terms of our ability to debate and "protect" our contribution to the consensus.

My sincerest thanks for this opportunity and for your time.

Best, --Jaobar (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Let's Talk discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been prior discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Is this an issue about article content, or about an editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor appears to be preventing changes to his student's article that arguably need to happen by simply reverting and citing NPOV and AGF rather than discussing the issue itself.

I would say the core issue is the sourcing of the article.

The reason for escalation is the potential conflict as raised, and the appearance of "protectorship" over his student's work. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Drmies & Jaobar, would you be willing to join in on this dispute resolution method? If not, please indicate so, in which case this request will be closed. --MrClog (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Kamrupi dialect (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs)
• Chaipau (talk · contribs)
• Aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue extensively with them at:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262#Removal_of_reliable_sources,
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1007#Bhaskarbhagawati_and_Kamarupi,
• Talk:Kamarupi_Prakrit
• Talk:Kamrupi_dialect

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Chaipau

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by Aeusoes1

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

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

Talk:Kamrupi Prakrit, Talk:Kamrupi dialect discussion

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

Sources by me (Bhaskarbhagawati)

• Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion, but not in the last three days. The editors should resume discussion on an article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, it can be resumed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not going to work, Robert. There hasn't been discussion in the last three days because we've been discussing at ANI, where I had brought up the dispute because Chaipau and I believe that the real problem is disruptive practices on Bhaskarbhagawati's part. We have been tasked with using DRN as a gesture of good faith. Bhaskarbhagawati specifically has been explicitly instructed not to discuss the matter in the talk pages until we go through the DRN process. — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I agree with user:aeusoes1, for the exacting requirements set on us at ANI. Also, over the years, since 2012, we have been stuck with the central question because of the different incarnations it takes (the latest is the "lack of history" phrasing). DRN should probably avoid falling into this trap of never ending cycles of discussions. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon and others, consider opening this thread, there are editing restrictions on article and talk, until issue is resolved here.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Since this case is being referred to this noticeboard from WP:ANI, it is particularly important that the editors follow the rules, because otherwise this case will go back to WP:ANI, possibly with my recommendations for a block or a lock. Please follow the rules at my statement of the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. I am not familiar with the details, but I understand that the issue has to do with how old the language is; I expect the editors to be able to inform me of all of the details, just as the article should inform readers of everything that is written by reliable sources. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to my questions. Every editor is expected to reply to my questions within 48 hours.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are, and what the article should say? Be concise, because the article should be concise.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Thank you Robert McClenon, the precise dispute is whether Kamrupi dialect/Kamrupi Prakrit/Kamrupi language/Western Assamese/Western Asamiya/Western Assam dialect/Undivided Kamrup district speech is a modern speech which lacks history or a old language with literature. Until 2012, original article was saying later, which was subsequently divided into Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit by Chaipau and other uninvolved editors citing lack of sources. Since then, relevant sources from eminent local linguists with full quotes are added to support its original position.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 07:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Kamrupi dialect currently states that Kamrupi is a dialect of Assamese, citing Goswami's (1970) A study on Kāmrūpī: a dialect of Assamese. I think this is correct. Kamarupi Prakrit, Assamese language#History, and KRNB lects identify the time that Assamese (which includes dialects like Kamrupi) began differentiating itself from its ancestral language and surrounding varieties as around 1250. We thus already reflect that Kamrupi has a history by indicating the mother language that Kamrupi comes from, and we also already identify the body of literature that reflects this history. What we don't (and shouldn't) do is refer to Kamarupi Prakrit as merely an earlier form of Kamrupi, since there are a number of varieties also descended from Kamarupi Prakrit. — Ƶ§œš¹ 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. Does anyone claim that the older language and the modern language are the same, or is there agreement that there has been linguistic evolution? If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours.

Second Statements by Editors

To be precise, Kamrupi dialect is a modern dialect of the Assamese language. It is established that Kamarupi Prakrit has evolved. It has evolved, after 1250, on the one hand into a group of lects (called Kamatapuri lects) that cluster together and on the other hand into Assamese language, which is also a cluster of lects or dialects. Thus, Kamarupi Prakrit → KRNB (Kamatapuri, Rangpuri, etc lects) + Assamese (Kamrupi, Goalparia, etc. dialects). Chaipau (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I am not sure that I understand what the issue is. It is agreed that the Kamrupi dialect is a modern form of the Assamese language. It is agreed that there was an older form of the language which was Kamrupi Prakrit, which is not attested but is known to have existed. If there is agreement that there has been linguistic evolution, is the issue that different scholars express it differently, or that they have different theories? If different scholars have different theories, they should all be stated. Please clarify within 48 hours in less than 300 words. Be clear, concise, and civil. If the issue is how to accommodate different statements that are not inconsistent, this can be worked out. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

.

Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• U1Quattro (talk · contribs)
• Vauxford (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The User Vauxford claimed that there were no photos of the pre facelift Audi R8 (Type 4S) in the article when there were photos of that nature present in the article. I even told him that but he still won't agree and continue to revert my edits adding a photo which was already been used before.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The user Vauxford had started a discussion on the talk page, after reverting the edits I had made which was not being very helpful.

How do you think we can help?

An independent editor should suggest a resolution to the above matter so that this edit war can be stopped.

Summary of dispute by Vauxford

Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S) discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. A Third Opinion might be a useful next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There is discussion of this issue at the edit-warring noticeboard. Discussion here or at Third Opinion should be an alternative to edit-warring. Stop edit-warring and try to resolve this. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dependent territory, Talk:List of sovereign states

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Dependent territory (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:List of sovereign states (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wiz9999 (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• ‎XavierGreen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

During a sequence of edits that occurred over most of March a significant amount of revisions were done on the List of sovereign states article on the "further information" section of various entries within. As a part of this process (which itself went back and forth quite a bit), the listing of Palmyra Atoll was removed from the United States entry due to questions about its "dependent territory" status within the article. It was thus pointed out that it was included within said article specifically because the criteria of 'List of sovereign states' stated that the list of dependent territories located on the Dependent territory article was the basis for including any dependent territory as a part of an entry on the List of sovereign states list. Once this was identified User:Chipmunkdavis went and revised the entire Dependent territory article removing several entries from it. Most notably Palmyra Atoll and Jan Mayen. Jan Mayen was previously under discussion on Talk:Dependent territory for an extended period of time (See here Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2), and had not been conclusively decided upon whether it was to remain in or not. I identified government based reliable sources which demonstrated that both of these entries should be included, but my edits kept getting reverted because of the concept of "incorporated territory" that is based on a legal USA definition and the idea that if something is "integrated" it is no longer a "dependent territory", however both of these are not equivalent terms. I have pointed out that it is WP:SYNTH that these concepts thus mean that something is not a "dependent territory" but my edits kept getting reverted regardless. I appeal to any editors with a logical mind and a firm understanding of WP:SYNTH and reliably sourced material to aide in this discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to provide RSs to the users on the other side of the dispute. I have adjusted the language of the entries on the secondary article to be more palatable to those with a differing opinion of what constitutes a "dependent territory" and what does not.

How do you think we can help?

Determine if there is a case of WP:SYNTH occurring with the sources provided by the users on the other side of the dispute.

Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

Summary of dispute by ‎XavierGreen

Talk:Dependent territory, Talk:List of sovereign states discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editors have not yet been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feminist views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics#Rewrite and Template Removal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22_Reborn (talk · contribs)
• -sche (talk · contribs)
• Aircorn (talk · contribs)
• A145GI15I95 (talk · contribs)
• Rab V (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The primary dispute is whether or not the page conforms to WP:UNDUE. The primary participants in this iteration of the dispute are myself and Flyer22_Reborn, although in the talk page and the talk archives it comes up several times between many different editors.

I (and other editors who have raised the issue the issue in the past) believe it does not conform to WP:UNDUE because it mostly represents the views of trans-exclusive feminists, even though trans-exclusive feminism is a minority if not fringe position within feminism. In order to fix it, I rearranged the article and took out many of the trans-exclusive claims and sources in the process.

Flyer22_Reborn reverted the article under the assertion that my understanding of WP:UNDUE and the understanding of editors who have raised the issue in the past is incorrect. I'm honestly still a little unclear what their position is, but it appears to come down to two things:

1) WP:UNDUE is only about reliable sources. Trans-inclusive feminism is underrepresented in reliable sources, so it should be underrepresented in the article.

My response to this is that I'm aware that WP:UNDUE is only about reliable sources, but trans-inclusive feminism is certainly not underrepresented in reliable sources. Even their own sources say explicitly that trans-exclusive feminism is a minority within feminism, so I'm not quite sure what they're talking about here.

2) Because there is a long-standing debate about this issue within feminism, the trans-exclusive side of the debate should be represented.

My response to this is that I agree with this as stated, but that representing a side of a debate and portraying that side as the majority position are two very different things.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As previously stated, several people have noticed the same issue and have tried to argue for various solutions on the talk page.

Flyer22_Reborn says they are preparing a draft for a rewritten article. It's possible that this draft will resolve the underlying issue, but I frankly doubt it will when so many previous attempts have failed without some sort of third-party opinion.

How do you think we can help?

A large part of the dispute is the meaning of WP:UNDUE as it applies to this article, and some kind of ruling or neutral opinion on that would be particularly helpful. I also feel that a neutral opinion on some of the underlying facts (such as whether trans-exclusive feminism is in fact a minority position) would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Flyer22_Reborn

Like I noted on the talk page, this "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source states, "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular" when it comes to the literature on feminist views on transgender topics. For anyone who doesn't know, "MTF" means male-to-female; it's referring to trans women. I pointed to other sources noting just how big this aspect of the topic is. Exclusionary views may be the minority view, but this topic mainly concerns the debate regarding trans women. It is mainly about trans women and radical feminists' views on trans women, which is why the article covering so much of it is WP:DUE. I'm not seeing sources on the topic covering much of anything else. I have looked at numerous reliable sources on feminist views on transgender issues, and I keep coming across the trans woman debate...more so than any other aspect of the topic. That is what I mean by WP:Due. I also noted that I will be typing up a draft and will present it there on the talk page. I think LokiTheLiar will appreciate the draft a lot more than the current state of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by sche

Loki made big changes, which were reverted; I don't see any support on talk for restoring Loki's big changes en masse, so I doubt DRN could find consensus to restore them. Flyer says she plans to make big changes of her own, but hasn't made or concretely proposed then yet, so they can't be discussed yet. In short, this thread seems premature. My initial suggestion is that Loki and Flyer break the changes they want to make into a series of proposals ("change this paragraph/section in X way", "change this other paragraph in Y way", "remove this paragraph", etc) which we could discuss on the talk page, and potentially request WP:3Os on if that proves necessary. -sche (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aircorn

The article is a mess of different sides adding their conflicting views and removing those they disagree with without much thought to making it encyclopaedic. Flyer Reborn is an experienced and proven editor in areas of this nature. While Loki has displayed incredible proficiency in how things work here for someone who has just started editing I would prefer to wait and see what Flyer comes up with in their draft version than debate superficial changes to a very flawed article. AIRcorn (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A145GI15I95

I'm new to the discussion on the talk page in question. I added minor content to the article three weeks ago. This week I was pinged on the talk page. I answered a question and added a request for more civil language choices. The topic is controversial, with each side using language that the other side sees as inaccurate and unfair. It's fine to call yourself anything, but we must be careful applying terms to other persons or groups who refuse and take offense to such terms. I'd prefer if we could consider this when contributing to Misplaced Pages. Persons and groups whom some call "trans-exclusive/exclusionary" rebuke this characterization, and instead call themselves "gender critical". Their focus isn't to exclude anyone who identifies or has been diagnosed as trans, rather to reject gender roles/stereotypes, and to reject the concept of social gender as being innate and essential to existence. The usage of the label "exclusive" is problematic for NPOV in the article, its talk page, and now in this DRN page. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Rab V

Talk:Feminist views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal discussion

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this an issue where moderated discussion leading to compromise is requested, or is this a yes-no question about the removal of a template? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Moderated discussion is requested. The original question that spawned the discussion on the talk page was about an edit that has since been reverted. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it appears through the dispute summaries that there is more-or-less a consensus to wait for Flyer22's draft. While I'm still a bit skeptical, I'm willing to defer to this consensus for now. In addition, I think -sche's suggestion is good and so I'm going to be making some more concrete proposals on the talk page about particular changes I would like to make in the hope we can reach consensus on some of them in the meantime. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the apparent promotion of disruptive language like "trans identified male", a phrase which is used offensively to describe transwomen as male and deny that identity, I have added a Discretionary Sanctions notice to the article talk page. The notice may be applied to any discussion of transgender topics. It is worth noting that A145GI15I95 was previously given a related talk page DS alert 29 days ago (diff), after an (Transgender-related POV editing) Arbcom request which was later declined. I strongly recommend that any potentially disruptive statements on that talk page are carefully sourced, and language used is limited to that as supported in verifiable reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who's been calling for more conscientious language to be used, not promoting known slurs. The DS alert was found to be baseless. The above comment is an unfair inference. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Ayanda Patosi

Closed. There are three problems with this filing. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. I would wait or remind if that were the only problem. Second, the discussion has not been lengthy. Third, this noticeboard doesn't "Decide who is right". A Third Opinion can offer an opinion as to who is right. This noticeboard provides moderated discussion, which has not been requested. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page or request a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards