Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 177

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Iraqi Turkmen#Language (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• (削除) John Francis Templeson (talk · contribs) (削除ここまで) No longer allowed to participate per community topic ban.
• Selçuk Denizli (talk · contribs)
• ReconditeRodent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have brought several sources that claim Iraqi Turkmani to be dialect Azeri to the article. That was reverted by user Selçuk Denizli, who claimed that these sources are not good enough. Then I gave an extensive information on the sources and showed that all of them are academic and written by well-known specialists. My colleague ignored this information and kept asserting that these sources lack credibility. The 3O, that basically supported me, didn't persuade him neither. The discussion reached the stalemate, Selçuk Denizli just repeats the same.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page, 3O

How do you think we can help?

Consider both point of views and explain who is right and who is wrong.

Unfortunately User:JFT has one aim: to label the Iraqi Turkmen as "Azeri". Whilst I acknowledge that there are similarities with the Iraqi Turkmen dialect(S) and Azeri (after all, both are Turkic), this user refuses to understand that they are not one language. Officially, the Iraqi Turkic dialectS (which vary region to region) are collectively recognized as Turkmen not "South Azeri". They show traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic (as well as additional influence from Arabic and Kurdish), as the majority of linguistic studies on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects show. Just because this user has found some sources (most of which are not peer-reviewed) saying that they speak "South Azeri" does not make it true, for I have found over 20 sources that do the same for "Turkish" (which I have not included in the article nor the talk page). The article already acknowledges that there are traces of Azeri Turkic, but this user will not stop until they portray the Iraqi Turkmen as Azeris. They have not contributed positively to the article at all; to repeat, their only action has been to add "Azeri" in the article whilst dismissing the realities of the past-to-present Iraqi Turkmen dialects and its legal status. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to a WP:3O request. JFT had presented nearly a dozen reliable sources which classify the dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen as "South Azeri", together with those spoken over the border in Iran. One researcher (Christiane Bulut) who has written extensively on the topic argues that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are instead a transitional group between South Azeri and modern Turkish, which has imparted influence as a prestige language. Most Iraqi Turkmen, including Selçuk, do not see themselves as "Azeri" (Azerbaijani), and feel a far greater affinity to Turkey and the Turkish language, which is also the Iraqi Turkmen's official written language. (North Azeri (Azerbaijani), Turkish and the dialects spoken in Iraq and Iran all have degrees of mutual comprehensibility with one another.)

As I see it, my proposed phrasing for the start of the 'Language' section, which JFT seemed happy with, tried to account for all these viewpoints, while still making clear that the dialects are "generally referred to as South Azeri".

In any case, the article previously described the dialects as Turkish, which I can find no academic support for, so, while the discussion was still ongoing, I corrected that and some smaller things which I thought we'd agreed upon, while trying not to take a hard stance on the classification. Selçuk clearly didn't agree with part of this, and has since re-written the entire section, strongly emphasising the connection to Turkish (though most of the new content I would be happy to keep if better contextualised), almost exclusively citing Bulut (who they claim is more or less the only usable source), and removing any mention of South Azeri from the introduction. I was going to call an RfC but Selçuk had changed everything so much it would've taken a while to prepare and then this happened. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I did, I have written them on the talk page of the article. If I had to write them in their own talk pages — sorry, I just didn't know. It is first time I make an appeal here. John Francis Templeson (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer note: I will open this resolution if no other volunteer has done so on Saturday. --MrClog (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog, Selçuk Denizli, and ReconditeRodent: John Francis Templeson has received a 6 month community topic ban which will preclude further participation in the dispute, including this discussion User talk:John Francis Templeson#Topic banned from the Middle East, Caucasus region, Iranian peoples and Turkic peoples, broadly construed Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@John Francis Templeson, Selçuk Denizli, and ReconditeRodent: I hereby open the resolution process. Before I dive into the content, please allow me to set up a few rules:

1. Do not directly respond to each other. You are here because that apparently does not work.
2. Comment only on content, not user conduct. So, this also means no personal attacks.
3. Do not engage in edit wars. If you do engage in one, I'll have to make a report at WP:AN/EW.

Now, I have no extensive knowledge on the subject, but I do understand that the issue is whether or not the article should claim that Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri speakers. Both parties claim there are realiable sources that claim their side to be correct. Therefore, please briefly explain what you want the article to read and list a maximum of 10 reliable sources that support your understanding of the subject. If there are more, list the 10 best sources you have. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping @ReconditeRodent: as a reminder. --MrClog (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not engage with each other!
John Francis Templeson: I want to add statement that according to some sources Iraqi Turkmeni is considered as Azeri. And also I don't mind if there will be added that some others classify Iraqi Turkmeni as separate language (I know that Christiane Bulute has such position, I'll be grateful if Selçuk Denizli will add some more). On the whole, I want both opinion to be present here. Some sources that classify Iraqi Turkmeni as Azeri:

• Bilgehan Atsız Gökdağ, Irak Türkmen Türkçesinin şekil bilgisine dair notlar (International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education Volume 1/1 2012 p. 113-123, Turkey).
• Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson, The Turkic Languages (Routledge, 2015) — The Speakers of Turkic Languages by Hendrik Boeschoten.
• Encyclopedia Iranica, AZERBAIJAN viii. Azeri Turkish
• Gerhard Doerfer, İran'da Türkler (Türk Dili, TDK Yay., Sayı: 431, Kasım 1987)
• Several Soviet and Russian sources, including БСЭ 1970, Азербайджанский язык; Азербайджанцы. (Grand Soviet Encyclopedia)
• Prof. Dr. Hidayet Kemal Bayatlı, Irak Türkmen Türkçesi (T.C. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Ana Bilim Dalı Yüksek Lisan Tezi). John Francis Templeson (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli: First of all, I must stress that I am an Iraqi Turkmen and was brought up speaking an Iraqi dialect of Turkic. Unfortunately, there are many websites which write incorrect information on our community (some incorrectly call us Azeris whilst others incorrectly group us under the Turkmen people of Turkmenistan -- mostly in passing, suggesting lack of knowledge). It is for these reasons that I have stressed the need to use sources by academics who are not only peer-reviewed but who are also specialists on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects or who focus on the legal status of minority languages in Iraq.

I have used the following sources (as well as several others) in the current version of the Iraqi Turkmen article, therefore, I wont repeat myself here (unless it is required). The 10 sources providing the most in-depth information on the Iraqi Turkmen, including dialects, official status, education, and media and literature are:

Dialects:

• Bulut, Christiane (2000), "Optative constructions in Iraqi Turkmen", in Göksel, Aslı; Kerslake, Celia (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, ISBN 3-447-04293-1
• Johanson, Lars (2001), Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map (PDF), Svenska Forskningsinstitutet i Istanbul
• Johanson, Lars (2006), "Historical, cultural and linguistic aspects of Turkic-Iranian contiguity", in Johanson, Lars; Bulut, Christiane (eds.), Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag
• Bulut, Christiane (2007), "Iraqi Turkman", in Postgate, J.N. (ed.), Languages of Iraq: Ancient and Modern, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, ISBN 090347221X
• Bulut, Christiane (2018b), "The Turkic varieties of Iran", in Haig, Geoffrey; Khan, Geoffrey (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110421682

Legal/official status:

• Karimi, Ali (2016), "Linguistic and Cultural Rights in the Arab Constitutions: From Arabism to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity", in Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J. (eds.), Constitutionalism, Human Rights, and Islam After the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0190627646
• Bammarny, Bawar (2016), "The Legal Status of the Kurds in Iraq and Syria", in Grote, Rainer; Röder, Tilmann J. (eds.), Constitutionalism, Human Rights, and Islam After the Arab Spring, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0190627646
• Bulut, Christiane (2018), "Iraq-Turkic", in Haig, Geoffrey; Khan, Geoffrey (eds.), The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 3110421682

Education:

• Shanks, Kelsey (2016), Education and Ethno-Politics: Defending Identity in Iraq, Routledge, ISBN 1-317-52043-2

Media and Literature (I have not yet written a section on literature):

• Saatçi, Suphi (2018), "The Turkman of Iraq", in Bulut, Christiane (ed.), Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic-Speaking Minorities of the Periphery, Harrassowitz Verlag, ISBN 3447107235

These sources are the most detailed peer-reviewed sources on the Iraqi Turkmen. None of these claim that the Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri or speak Azerbaijanian. These sources do not rely merely on one-liner sentences to "prove" the reality. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent: Besides everything already listed, I came across one source providing the following citation for the statement that Turkmeni "is closer to Azeri than Turkish":

• Овезов-Каджаров 1993: 141, 185–187; cf. [Sâdettin] Buluç 1966 [Kerkük hoyratlarına dair], 1979 [Teknik Resim Uygulamalari-macit], [Abdullatif] Benderoğlu 1976, Дурдысв-Кадыров 1991: 50–53

As a tertiary source I might also mention David Nissman, an expert in the history and politics of the region who is himself cited by Bulut, who seems comfortable calling the language of the Iraqi Turkmen "the same" as that of the Iranian Azeris:

• Nissman, David (28 July 2001). "The Southern Azeri-Iraqi Turkmen Connection". RFE/RL. Retrieved 29 April 2019. The pressures on [the Iraqi Turkmen] are at least as great as those on the Iranian Azeris to conform to the demands of Iranian ethnic, political, and religious pressures. And yet this is not what unites the two peoples: it is that they share the same language and, in part, the same traditions.

Everything I've seen suggests this is at least currently the default view. It could be outdated, it could be wrong (although an argument about whether to put some dialects with one language or call them a "transitional group" between that language and another seems like it's unlikely to have a clean answer), but for now it's what most sources say. All I want is for this idea to be mentioned once (nearish the start) and not in a way that implies it's an errant or minority view. It doesn't have to imply that because it's widespread it must be right. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. As far as I understand, there are at least eight sources that say sources Iraqi Turkmen are Azari speakers and at least ten sources that claim they are Turkic speakers. I would like to ask each of you a different question to continue the dispute resolution.

• @Selçuk Denizli: Please briefly explain why you oppose mentioning that some sources call Iraqi Turkmen Azari speakers. You may discuss the quality of the other editors' sources if needed.
• @ReconditeRodent: Please bring a proposed text in with which you would agree.

--MrClog (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

No one's disputing that their language is Turkic, since South Azeri is a subcategory of Turkic. Turkmeni has historically been called Turkish when listed as an official language but no one's arguing that from a linguistic perspective. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent, thank you for the clarification. --MrClog (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Do not engage with each other!
Selçuk Denizli:

I am opposed to three issues: the use of non-linguistic sources, the use of sources which are not peer-reviewed, and the use of studies which do not focus on the Iraqi Turkmen.

Unfortunately, the list provided by User:John Francis Templeson is full of contradictions and inaccuracies by the authors and have been taken out of context on Wikipedia. For example, although Professor Hendrik Boeschoten does say there is "a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijanian – speaking part of the population" he lists the language/people as "Iraq Turkmens" not Turkish nor Azerbaijianian and gives an incorrect population of 400,000 in 2015 (see page 5). (Please note that the Iraqi census of 1957/59 shows that there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen who listed their mother tongue as "Turkish", forming 9% of the population). Similarly, there are problems with Dr. Hidayet Kemal Bayatlı's work: he calls the Iraqi Turkmen dialects "Irak Türkmen Türkçesi" (Iraqi Turkmen Turkish) but then says: "The language spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen falls under Azeri (Eastern Oghuz)" (page 329); however, Azeri falls under Western Oghuz not Eastern Oghuz, which again shows incorrect information. The sources by Gerhard Doerfer focus on Iran not Iraq, these are not studies on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects.

I do appreciate User:ReconditeRodent's attempt to help us come to an agreement, but the footnotes he/she has listed from Dr Larry Clark's study does not provide evidence that Iraqi Turkmen are Azeri speakers, for the source says they "may number more than 200,000, who speak a western Oguz dialect closer to Azeri than to Turkish" (page 11). Whilst Clark says it is "closer to Azeri", he does not say it is Azeri, and an estimate of "more than 200,000" shows that the source is out of touch with the reality, for there was 567,000 Iraqi Turkmen speakers in 1957/59 (listed as "Turkish" at the time) and now there are over 3 million Iraqi Turkmen according to the Iraqi Ministry of Planning (2013).

We should avoid using random non-linguistic articles, such as the Radio Free Europe publication discussed above, because it will only open the floodgates in the future and cause further disputes. There are many websites which also claim that Iraqi Turkmen speak a Turkish dialect, such as the CIA World Factbook, Minority Rights Group International, and Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (page 2). There are many scholars who have published books which say that Iraqi Turkmen is a Turkish dialect or that there are Turkish-speaking people in Iraq, such as Professor Charles Warren Hostler (page 12), Professor Yılmaz Çolak (page 16), Dr Henry Field (page 11)... the list is actually quite extensive... But I refrained from using these sources because, as I keep stressing, the language section should focus on linguistic, peer-reviewed, sources which focus on the Iraqi Turkmen dialect(s). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, so far not a single linguistic source has been provided that claims Iraqi Turkmen speak "South Azeri" so I do not understand why this would be suggested for an introduction. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent:

For the introductory paragraph of the language section:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language variously known as Turkmen/Turkoman, Turkmeni, Iraqi Turkmen, or Iraqi Turkic (to distinguish it from the Turkmen language of Turkmenistan). In linguistic sources it is usually referred to as a dialect of South Azeri, grouping it with the dialects in neighbouring Iran, although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a "transitional dialect group" between South Azeri and Turkish due to heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmen themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish, which is used as a prestige language and the official written language.

Other than that I'd be mostly happy to leave things as they are, with Selçuk's new introduction as the second paragraph and the "Classification of dialects" section removed since it's a mess. The line "Iraqi-Turkic is said to be particularly close to the Turkish dialects of Diyarbakır and Urfa in south-eastern Turkey." can probably be reincorporated somewhere, bearing in mind that the source itself says "[Bulut] concludes that the dialects originally display numerous features of the Afshar or Southern Oghuz group but also exhibit similarities with certain southeastern Anatolian dialects as those of Urfa and Diyarbekir." ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Diyarbakır is also closer to Azeri than Turkish,^[1] and some shared features "may be due to the presence of the [otherwise South Azeri-speaking] Bayat tribe" in eastern Anatolia.^[2] ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.

• @ReconditeRodent: Could you please comment on the concerns brought up by Selçuk Denizli?
• @Selçuk Denizli: Could you please bring up a proposed text that you would agree with?

--MrClog (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent and Selçuk Denizli: Reminder. :) --MrClog (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli:

Sorry for my late reply. ReconditeRodent had expressed removing the "Classification of dialects" heading, so I have written an introduction with that in mind:

The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often called "Iraq Turkmen",^[1] "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish",^[2] and "Iraqi Turkic".^{[3] [4]} Officially, Iraq had recognized "Turkish" as a minority language in 1932,^[5] until the military junta introduced the names "Turkman" and "Turkmanja" in 1959.^[4] Today, the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 recognizes the Iraqi Turkmen dialects as "Turkmen/Turkomen".^[6]

With regard to phonology, vocabulary, morphology and syntax, the Iraqi Turkmen varieties show autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic.^[7] Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish,^[8] whilst others have described it as an "Azeri",^[2] "Turkish",^[9] or "Eastern Anatolian" dialect.^[10] Professor Christiane Bulut has said that publications from Azerbaijan often use expressions such as "Azeri (dialects) of Iraq" or "South Azeri" with political implications; yet, in Turcological literature, closely related dialects in Turkey and Iraq are generally referred to as "eastern Anatolian" or "Iraq-Turkic/-Turkman" dialects, respectively.^[11]

The Iraqi Turkmen dialects show numerous features with Afshar or Southern Oghuz groups, as well as similarities with southeastern Anatolian dialects – such as Urfa and Diyarbekir.^[12] Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties.^[12] Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish ("Irak Türkmen Türkçesi"), and their written language is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools.^{[13] [14]}

In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.^{[15] [16]}

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent:

• While mistakes don’t invalidate someone’s work as a whole,^[1] the only thing Selçuk has brought up which strikes me as a likely mistake is Bayatlı putting Azerbaijani as Eastern Oghuz. Our page on Azerbaijani seems to do the same thing but unless it’s an alternative model^[2] excluding Turkmenistani they probably mean to say it’s part of the Eastern branch of Western Oghuz. As for the rest:
  • Different population figures may be due to estimates from different sources (given this is largely before the internet as well), which can also differ for political reasons,^[3] different criteria for who to count, and republication.^[4]
  • "a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijanian – speaking part of the population" obviously means "a Turkish-speaking – or rather Azerbaijani-speaking – part of the population" not "a Turkish – or rather Azerbaijani – part of the population who can speak" so the ethnonym doesn’t need to change. I’d appreciate it if we could not spend any more time on trying to discredit and re-credit every source based on irrelevant trivialities and wilful misinterpretation.
• Other sources referring to Iraqi Turkmen as Turkish exist because all these languages (including "Azeri") are sometimes called "Turkish" (and "Türkçesi" in Turkish and so on), especially historically.^[5] The idea of Iraqi Turkmen being a dialect of modern Turkish, meanwhile, is based either on cultural factors or confusion caused by the previous usage, which is why I felt it was pretty much covered by the self-identification bit and the (would-be) following paragraph. The "Azeri" label, by contrast, stems from (albeit sparse) linguistic research. Even Christiane Bulut seems to acknowledge (as we’ve been over on Talk:Iraqi Turkmen) that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish, at least historically.
• Gerhard Doerfer is an expert, and cites the following for the claim that the language of the Iraqi Turkmen is "Azeri" in the peer-reviewed Encyclopedia Iranica:
  • Choban Khıdır Haydar, İrak türkmen ağızları, dissertation, Istanbul, 1979.
  • M. Š. Širäliev, "K voprosu ob izuchenii i klassifikatsii azerbaĭdzhanskikh dialektov," Izvestiya azerbaĭdzhanskogo filiala Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1941, 1944.

He says the same thing in his paper, citing the work of Sadettin Buluç (from earlier if you remember), who Bulut also cites regularly.

• And since I’m here have some more sources:
  • GÖKDAĞ, Bilgehan A. (2019). "Telafer Ağzı". Karadeniz Araştırmaları. XVI/61: 102-119.
  • Atsız GÖKDAĞ, Bilgehan (2012). "Some Notes on the Morphology of the Iraqi Turkmen Dialect". International Journal Of Turkish Literature Culture Education. 1 (1): 113–123. doi:10.7884/teke.15.
  • Collin, R.O. (2009) Words of war: the Iraqi Tower of Babel, International Studies Perspectives, 10(3),pp. 245–264. "The Turkmen or Turcoman population of Iraq speaks a dialect of Turkish, which Ethnologue ⁄ISO accurately classifies as Southern Azerbaijani (AZB), despite the fact that most Iraqi Turkmen would reject this label and look to Ankara in Turkey as a cultural focus, rather than Azerbaijan."
• North and South Azeri are distinct enough for Ethnologue to consider them separate languages, even though, much like how all these languages are sometimes called "Turkish", they are both often called "Azeri". I found another piece by Bulut:
  • Idor, Erik; Theander, Gren (1997). Orientalia Suecana (in German). Almquist & Wiksell Periodical Company. p. 9. [translated] The literature has long noted similarities between Iraqi Turkmen and certain southeast Anatolian dialects around the region of of Urfa/Diyarbekir. On the other hand, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are often labelled "Azeri". Even the classification given by Hussein Shahbaz Hassan (1979), one of the few experts on the subject, is extremely vague: "The Kerkuk dialect today, according [...] to our observations, is more or less a dialect of Azeri Turkic." (Hassan 1979:468)

It’s vague, as she goes on to explain, because Hussein means 'South Azeri' by Azeri Turkic, rather than Azerbaijani. As mentioned earlier, Ethnologue classes Iraqi Turkmen as South Azeri too, so we might as well be specific.

All that said, I’d like to modify my proposal a little:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language (Türki or Turkmanja) called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraqi Turkic. Linguistic sources generally^[6] group it with dialects in neighbouring Iran as "South Azeri", although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a "transitional dialect group" between South Azeri and Anatolian Turkish dialects due to heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish, which is used as a prestige language and the official written language.

@Selçuk Denizli and ReconditeRodent: Thank you for your responses. I'm going to allow both of you to submit a text you think both of you could agree on, as well as providing a proposed text based upon the sources you have provided.

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language (Türki or Turkmanja) called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraqi Turkic. Linguistic sources often group it with dialects in neighbouring Iran as "South Azeri", although Christiane Bulut argues that it constitutes a "transitional dialect group" between South Azeri and Anatolian Turkish dialects due to the heavy influence from the latter. Iraqi Turkmens themselves, as well as certain linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish ("Irak Türkmen Türkçesi"), and their written language is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

Selçuk Denizli:

I cannot support this, particularly the first sentence; no citations have been presented which perhaps explains why there are some inaccuracies. Specifically, there is confusion in the terminology: "Turki" is a historic Ottoman term, Lisan-ı Türki (i.e. تركی‎ لسان ) means "Ottoman/Turkish language" (just as Lisan-ı Farsi means Persian and Lisan-ı Arabî means Arabic); "Turkmanja" is a modern Iraqi political term introduced after the military junta. So "Turki" and "Turkmanja" are not synonymous. So far, hardly any of the sources mention South Azeri as the spoken language of the Iraqi Turkmen (sources that say it is close to it need to be written as such), so it cannot be presented as the majority opinion. Of the linguistic sources, Bulut mentions that Iraqi Turkmen shows traces of both South Azeri and Ottoman Turkish. Therefore, the Ottoman Turkish influence (i.e. not the Anatolian dialects, but the Ottoman administrative official language) must not be neglected either.

Whilst "Iraqi Turkmen" and "Iraqi Turkic" have been kept in the proposal, "Iraqi Turkish" should be included too, for it is the term used on the official map presented on the homepage of the the Turkic Languages Journal website (cited by ReconditeRodent and myself). The official recognition status (from 1932 to now) should not be deleted; nor should the source by Bernt Brendemon stating that it is an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect, or the source by Lars Johanson stating that the Iraqi Turkmen syntax differs "sharply" from Irano-Turkic. By removing all this from the main heading, the section is no longer neutral -- basically, the first sentence is not representative of the larger influences; rather, it is a reminder of the popular pan-Turkists rhetoric which wishes to join Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Iranian Azerbaijan as one nation through the Iraqi Turkmens -- we should avoid such a dangerous path. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have written another proposal with hopes that this would suit us all:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language, historically called Türkî,^[1] which is often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen",^[2] "Iraqi Turkish",^[3] or "Iraqi Turkic" in linguistic sources.^{[1] [4]} Officially, Iraq had recognized Turkish as a minority language in 1932,^[5] until the military junta introduced the names "Turkman" and "Turkmanja" in 1959.^[1] Since 2005, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are recognized as a minority language called "Turkmen/Turkomen".^[6] The Iraqi Turkmen varieties show autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic.^[7] Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish^[8] or that it is an "Azeri" dialect.^[9] Iraqi Turkmens themselves, as well as some linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish,^[10] or, more specifically, an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect,^[11] which they refer to as "Irak Türkmen Türkçesi". Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects; thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties.^[12] The written language of the Iraqi Turkmens is based on the Modern Turkish alphabet, which was adopted in 1997.^[13] Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools.^{[13] [14]} In addition to their mother tongue, Iraqi Turkmen are often bilingual or trilingual. Arabic is acquired through the mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.^{[15] [16]}

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Since ReconditeRodent insisted on using Larry V. Clark's Turkmen Reference Grammar, I draw attention to page 19 where he lists "Eastern Anatolian" under Western Oguz > 1) "Turkish" > d) "Eastern Anatolian dialects". Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Selçuk Denizli, would you be OK if Some linguists have said that the Iraqi Turkmen dialects are closer to Azeri than Turkish is changed to "most linguistists" per the prior discussion? --MrClog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

MrClog, the word "most" is subjective; I could also provide vague literature, similar to the citations referring to "Azeri", which claim it as "Turkish". But I used the word "some" because it is more neutral.

ReconditeRodent's proposal below (signed at 16:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)) is selective with citations, favoring "Azeri" -- to the point that a journal citation has been given without information on the name of the article or its author (i.e. "Idor, Erik; Theander, Gren (1997). Orientalia Suecana"). Furthermore, footnotes from Clark (1998) have simply been copy-pasted without any verification: what does Овезов-Каджаров 1993 etc. actually say? If this information cannot be provided then it should not be cited. Clark (1998) is enough.

In my proposals, I've compromised by including sources insisted by ReconditeRodent (including Clark, 1998; Bayatlı 1996); yet, ReconditeRodent has removed all the English studies on Iraqi Turkmen dialects -- which, in fact, do not mention Iraqi Turkmen dialects as Azerbaijani (i.e. Christiane Bulut -- not in ReconditeRodent's footnotes, Lars Johanson, Bernt Brendemon). Why does their new proposal omit the fact that Iraqi Turkmen dialects are also called "Iraqi Turkish" and "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish"? Why not mention the legal status? Why cite Hendrik Boeschoten's article yet omit using the studies of all other linguists who have also contributed to the Turkic Languages Journal? Why continue to cited Ethnologue when I have pointed out that the website contradicts itself: it lists "Azerbaijani, South: 2,004,000" and then further down the SAME list it says "Turkmen: 400,000", see:"Iraq:Language", so how can this be relied upon? A non-linguistic source (i.e. Richard Oliver Collin) cannot "validate" this pro-Ethnologue argument -- especially since there is clearly confusion on their website.

I have been willing to include studies on Iraqi Turkmen dialects which say "Azeri", however, I refuse to accept a proposal which does not also mention the Ottoman Turkish and Anatolian traces. As a native speaker, the last proposal below is actually offensive -- it completely disregards the fact that Iraqi Turkmen has autochthonous items as well as traces of both Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic. Imagine you were on Turkish Wikipedia writing on the Canadian English article that it has "elements of both British English and American English, as well as many uniquely Canadian characteristics" (as the article quite rightly says) and then I come in, as someone with no knowledge of English, and continuously use vague sources to write proposals saying it is American English.... This is what is going on here.

One last comment in this very long post (which I sincerely apologize for), Tekin's study groups the "Kerkuk and Erbil dialects" in the subgroup that says "gal" rather than "kal", but Cypriot Turkish also uses "gal" rather than "kal", that does not make Cypriot Turks Azeri-speakers. This is shown in all Cypriot Turkish dictionaries. In fact, Lars Johanson (2009) touches on similarities with Iraqi Turkic and Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish dialects in his article "Modals in Turkic (see p.502. p.503-04, respectively) and places Iraqi Turkic as separate, though similar, with Azeri (p.493). Selçuk Denizli (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent: I'm okay including a mention that some sources call the language Turkish on the basis of the Studies in Turkish Linguistics citation, but I would ideally request changing "certain linguistic sources" to "a few linguistic sources", since none of the others cited by Selçuk qualify as linguistic and none discuss the classification, and also because of the ambiguity mentioned earlier.^[1]

I had also been thinking that modern Turkish Turkish was the written language^[2] based on Bulut's description of how hard it is to find written transcripts but maybe I've got that wrong.

Overall, though, I think it's excellent and prioritises information very well. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 00:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is continuing I was also wondering if anyone can give me a link to Bernt Brendemon's article for context since at least one classification system I've found refers to "East Anatolian dialects of Azerbaijani".^[3]

@ReconditeRodent: How do you feel about the proposal of Selçuk, specifically if the suggestion I left is implemented? --MrClog (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: I think it puts a little too much emphasis on official recognition throughout history by putting it first (I'm happy for it to be in a later paragraph). It doesn't make clear that when people call the language "Azeri", they generally mean the "Azeri" of Iran, as Bulut explains. The "autochthonous" line is a little clunky, being lifted directly from the source, doesn't link up with anything in the rest of the text as far as I can tell, and could also be misunderstood as suggesting an 'original' non-Turkic language or one that didn't already fall within the west Oghuz spectrum.^[4] "Eastern Anatolian" is primarily a geographic term, so I'd still like to see the context for the line which calls it an "Eastern Anatolian" dialect,^[5] and preferably a second linguistic source referring to the language as Turkish (particularly in a context which implies in some way that this is as opposed to Azeri). Though it's also lifted, I like the "syntax" line and would probably put it later since it's arguably a little arbitrary for the intro, but we can include it if necessary. Since you've already proposed a version which I would accept I think it would be easier to work forwards from that based on Selçuk's specific criticisms. I've made a preliminary attempt based on some of the comments:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraq-Turkic. According to Christiane Bulut, it constitutes a "transitional dialect group" between the Turkic dialects of northwest Iran and eastern Anatolia, within the continuum between (South) Azeri and Turkish. While linguistic sources generally say it is closer to Azeri (as spoken in Iran),^{[6] [a]} Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. Turkish is also used as the official written language. Additionally, many Iraqi Turkmen learn Arabic through mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 16:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

First of all, let me restate ReconditeRodent's proposal:

The Iraqi Turkmen speak a western Oghuz language called Iraqi Turkmen or Iraq-Turkic. According to Christiane Bulut, it constitutes a "transitional dialect group" between the Turkic dialects of northwest Iran and eastern Anatolia, within the continuum between (South) Azeri and Turkish. While linguistic sources generally say it is closer to Azeri (as spoken in Iran),^{[1] [a]} Iraqi Turkmens themselves tend to view their language as a dialect of Turkish. Diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish has become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing influence of Turkish culture and private Turkish schools. Turkish is also used as the official written language. Additionally, many Iraqi Turkmen learn Arabic through mass media and state education whilst Kurdish is acquired in their neighbourhoods and through intermarriage.

Now, let's take this as a starting point to work towards a text that we both can agree on.

• First, @Selçuk Denizli, please make a bulleted list in which you state all things you want added/removed from the text, plus a brief explanation why that change is necessary. (Don't modify the proposal, simply state the problems you have with it.)
• Then, @ReconditeRodent, please address the concerns of Selçuk by either modifying the proposal or explaining why you don't think the problems need to be addressed.

Thank you, --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli:

I do appreciate the fact that ReconditeRodent has admitted to being harsh, but the Iraqi Turkmen dialects range from region to region and this simply has not been represented in the discussion -- some are closer to Turkish dialects in Turkey and others to Iran (one of the sources cited by ReconditeRodent actually says this, as I will show below). For this reason, I have written another proposal which I will place below MrClog's request for a statement/reaction to ReconditeRodent's proposal. I felt the need to do this for two reasons: 1) there has been a lot of inaccurate statements made and confusion through the sources; 2) I feel it would be unfair if we only focus on a proposal by ReconditeRodent, rather than both of our proposals (perhaps coming to an agreement through merging?).

Firstly, Mrclog's request:

To keep/add:
In general I do not have a problem with the 2nd to 4th sentences, and I'm willing to keep Bayatlı (1996), Clark (1998), and Boeschoten (2008 - written in your footnotes as "Lars Johanson; Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson") as a compromise. I'm also fine to use Gökdağ (2019), however, this source has been taken out of context. Whilst he says on p.103 that it can be "evaluated" ("değerlendirebileceğimiz") with "Azeri", he also says that "It shows significant similarities ("büyük benzerlikler") to the dialects spoken in South Azerbaijan, Tehran and Saveh in Iran and Urfa, Diyarbakır, Elazığ, Gaziantep in Turkey"... he then says that Iraqi Turkmen has two main groups: group "Y" (Tal Afar -- which is the most populous Turkmen region, see p.104 -- Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli dialects) show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa, whilst group "v" (Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin) show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar dialects... So the similarities with Eastern Turkey should be included too... then on page 105 he says that Iraqi Turkmen under the age of 18 now speak Istanbul Turkish (because of education), and on page 106 he says that the Iraqi Turkmen outside the borders (i.e. immigrants) also use Turkish of Turkey.

Linguistic sources also show that there are similarities with Cypriot and Balkan Turkish, which I have provided in my proposal below.

To delete

• The first sentence would need to be completely rewritten, emphasizing how the dialects range region to region (some dialects might be similar to South Azeri but not all are)
• Footnote 1 (i.e. "Овезов-Каджаров 1993: 141, 185–187; cf. [Sâdettin] Buluç 1966 [Kerkük hoyratlarına dair], 1979 [Teknik Resim Uygulamalari-macit], [Abdullatif] Benderoğlu 1976, Дурдысв-Кадыров 1991: 50–53") should be deleted because none of this has been verified, Clark (1998) is enough.
• In Footnote 2
  • Encyclopædia Iranica should be deleted because it only mentions Kirkuk and northern Iraq. Iraqi Turkmen live throughout the country and the dialects range considerably.
  • "Lars Johanson; Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson" should be corrected, these are not the author just the editors.
• Footnote 3 should be deleted, it is an incomplete citation with no author or article given for verification.
• Footnote 4 should be deleted, because ethnologue lists "South, Azeri" and "Turkmen" as separate -- there is clearly confusion here.
• Footnote 5 should be deleted because it is not a linguistic source.

or what about:

Having taken ReconditeRodent's comment regarding detail (length?) into consideration, perhaps this could work (with discussion of the use of "most" or "some" to follow? -- as of yet, we only have one source, Ethnologue, that claims South Azeri, alongside "Turkmen"):

Additional comment: instead of "some" or "most" (the latter is very subjective!), I think the word "numerous" could work.

Language (Heading) The western Oghuz dialects spoken by the Iraqi Turkmen are often referred to as "Iraqi Turkmen/Turkman",^{[1] [2]} "Iraqi Turkmen Turkish",^{[3] [4]} "Iraqi Turkish",^{[5] [6] [7] [8]} and "Iraqi Turkic".^{[9] [10]} The Iraqi Turkmen dialects possess their own unique characteristics, but have also been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic.^[11] Iraqi Turkmens themselves (according to the 1957/59 census), as well as a range of linguistic sources, tend to view their language as a "Turkish" dialect,^{[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]} which they call Irak Türkmen Türkçesi or Irak Türkçesi. Studies have long noted the similarities between Iraqi Turkmen and certain Southeastern Anatolian dialects around the region of Urfa and Diyarbakır,^[20] or have described it as an "Anatolian"^{[15] [21]} or an "Eastern Anatolian dialect".^[22] Yet, there are also linguists who have said that Iraqi Turkmen is closer to Azeri,^[23] or placed certain dialects, particularly the Kirkuk dialect, as "more or less"^[24] an "Azeri Turkish" dialect.^{[25] [26] [27]} However, there are linguists who acknowledge similarities with Azeri spoken in Iran but say that Iraqi Turkmen has "greater proximity to Turkish of Turkey".^[5] Ethnologue lists "Azerbaijani, South" and "Turkmen" separately in Iraq, the latter displaying "heavy Turkish and Arabic influences lexically with some Azeri features".^[28] Collectively, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects also show similarities with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish regarding modality,^[29] and the written language of all the Iraqi Turkmen is based on the modern Turkish alphabet.^[30] Indeed, modern Turkish as a prestige language has exerted a profound influence on the Iraqi Turkmen dialects;^[31] thus, the syntax in Iraqi Turkmen differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties.^[31] Besides their traditional dialects, the Iraqi Turkmen diaspora also communicate in standard Turkish (of Turkey),^[32] whilst the younger generations in Iraq (below the age of 18 in 2019) speak Istanbul Turkish with ease.^[33] In addition, diglossia in Iraq-Turkic and Turkish (of Turkey) has become a widespread phenomenon.^{[30] [34]} Most Iraqi Turkmen can also speak Arabic and/or Kurdish.^{[35] [36]}

Iraqi Turkmen dialects (Sub-heading)

In general, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects of Tal Afar (approx 700,000 speakers^[37] ), Altun Kupri, Tuz Khurmatu, Taza Khurmatu, Kifri, Bashir, and Amirli show unity with the Eastern Anatolian dialect of Urfa;^{[38] [27]} meanwhile, the dialects in Kirkuk, Erbil, Dohuk, Mandali, and Khanaqin show similarities with Tehrani and Afshar

Turkic dialects.^[27] Yet, the Kirkuk dialect also shows comparable features with Urfa,^{[39] [12]} and 21.4% of Kirkuk province's population had self-declared their mother tongue as "Turkish" in the last census which asked about language.^[40] In addition, the Erbil dialect shows similarities with Turkish dialects stretching from Kosovo to Rize, Erzurum, and Malatya.^[41]

Selçuk Denizli (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent: I'll admit I've been a bit harsh. I can see Selçuk is trying to compromise and I hope they can see that I am too.

• You're right that the citation should say Christiane Bulut – I was using this Google Books formatting tool to save time.
• I thought it would be helpful to give the original sources in case anyone can find them, or in case the link fails (though unlikely), especially since the Clark source is secondary/tertiary (depending on how you look at it). (Cf. WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.)^[1]
• I didn't mean to suggest the other sources should be excluded, I just thought it'd save time to only cite the controversial information for now since these proposals keep getting revised.
• I don't want to delete the legal status info, it just seems secondary to me (especially the historical info) so I'd rather it was in a later paragraph. The fact that it's a currently an official language is probably the most that should be in the first paragraph and even that doesn't really give you much insight into the linguistics or culture of it.
• There are a million things this language has been called (remember the earlier drafts?), and I can't find anyone calling it "Iraqi Turkish" other than that map (and I'm not sure being on the website of a publisher automatically makes a map reliable) which is why I took it out. If Selçuk finds a few more citations I guess I don't mind that much about including it.
• The mistake in Ethnologue (assuming it is) probably comes from careless sources like these,^[2] and (per earlier) doesn't invalidate it as a whole. In any case, I only mentioned it because it determines whether the language gets its own ISO code or not.
• I'm not saying the "autochthonous" line is wrong, just that it could be clearer. Maybe like: "As well as possessing their own unique characteristics, the Iraqi Turkmen dialects have been influenced by the historical standards of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri Turkic."
• Lastly, I'm not suggesting we use any of the classification systems in Tekin, I was trying to explain why a source calling the Turkmen dialects "Eastern Anatolian" can't be assumed to mean they're calling them Turkish.

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

ReconditeRodent, could you address the new concerns listed by Selçuk in his section above? --MrClog (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: reminder :) - also, Selçuk has made a proposal of his own. --MrClog (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of the new stuff looks good, though I wouldn't put so much detail in the first paragraph. (Unrelated but I also think it would be good to have the URLs where at all possible.) It's nice that this process has led to lots of new information that will get included, thanks to Selçuk. The only reason I ended up moving towards calling the Iraqi Turkmen dialects a "language" was because it's easier to write about (and since lots of things we call languages which have very broad dialectal variation) but I'm happy to change it back. Ultimately though, I feel the only thing we really need answered is whether we should say that "most" linguistic sources say Iraqi Turkmen is closer to Azeri/South Azeri than Turkish or just "some". I'd like to request permission to call an RfC to resolve this. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 19:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selçuk Denizli and ReconditeRodent: It seems you have agreed on a text, and I have opened an RfC for the "some"/"most" sources dispute here. Are you OK with me closing this dispute resolution request as resolved? --MrClog (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly happy, except

• Bulut, as well as Ethnologue, specifies that that classification more specifically refers to the dialects they speak in Iran, which is clearly vital if they're distinct enough to be considered separate languages
• all the sources on the English names of the Iraq-Turkmen dialects should be in English, naturally
• "Eastern Anatolian" still seems to be a geographic term, not a linguistic one
• I'd like some of the removed citations to be restored, particularly the Orientalia Suecana one with the Bulut quote, Gökdağ, and the Encyclopedia Iranica (it can be in the same ref tag as the other one by Doerfer), as well as the The Turkic Languages one since we're also accepting the passing mention in Studies in Turkish Linguistics
• the line about Cypriot and Balkan Turkish strikes me as undue (at least in the intro)
• I'd still like all citations to be linked, and a chance to review the context of the new sources which supposedly argue that the dialects are mostly closer to Turkish (which I realise now I've been reading as Standard Turkish and Selçuk has been reading as any dialect of Turkish)

─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to close this with my final proposal (if this is also ok with ReconditeRodent), it has been a long dispute but we managed to really delve into the topic -- so thank you for your assistance. I have made the suggestion to use the neutral word "numerous" rather than "some" or "most", which I truly believe is an objective and accurate way to describe/"measure" this. Fingers crossed we are nearly there. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Selçuk Denizli, could you in the meantime try to address the comments of ReconditeRodent? (The RfC will take 30 days, so we have enough time to make some small edits to the final text.) --MrClog (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent:,

• Could you please be specific on which Bulut source you are referring to (we have used so much of her, so I'm confused by this comment)?
• The term "Eastern Anatolian dialect" is used in two of the Turkish sources that you have provided, so I'm not sure why this should be a problem.
• Regarding modals and similarity with Cypriot Turkish and Balkan Turkish, I have split the paragraph into two: the introduction is about the Iraqi Turkmen dialects collectively; the second paragraph is more in-depth, focusing on the two main branches of Iraqi Turkmen dialects. It is important to have this in the introduction because the modals differ from Turkey.
• I've provided full citations, fell free to link them -- I have no problem with this. I will slightly amend to read "Turkish dialect". Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog:, of course. I'm just slightly confused by a few points made. But will amend accordingly when ReconditeRodent gets back to me. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've amended. Please take a look and let me know your thoughts. Selçuk Denizli (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging ReconditeRodent :) --MrClog (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: reminder --MrClog (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selçuk Denizli: you can add your current proposal to the page, after which I'll close this DRN, per a message on ReconditeRodent's talk page. --MrClog (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Operation Mockingbird (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rgr09 (talk · contribs)
• Cll734t64232489 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is how to describe 'Operation Mockingbird'. There is ultimately only one, non-reliable source for the existence of this program, which the CIA supposedly began in the late 1940s or early 1950s. It is a very under-discussed issue in terms of reliable research publications; RS discussions are hard to come by. The article was built through references to works which never mention Operation Mockingbird once. The solution, reached through discussion on the talk page, was to label OM an 'alleged' operation. Unfortunately, this has led many editors with strong opinions and no research to back them up to simply delete the word 'alleged', leaving a very confused article indeed. User Cll734t64232489 is the latest to do so, and although I left a note Cll734t64232489's talk page and edit summaries asking for a discussion of the issue on the talk page, Cll734t64232489 has simply reverted all edits restoring the 'alleged' descriptor. Life is short, and I don't see the point in going back and forth in this way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted on user's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can persuade Cll734t64232489 to discuss the issue on the talk page, rather than just unilaterally insert his or her opinions in the article.

@Rgr09:, from your comments you’ve stated there’s widespread agreement on the talk page to describe the operation as "alleged". Can you please provide a link to this discussion where this clear consensus was established? I’ve taken a cursory glance through the talk page and cannot see such a discussion that has a clear consensus, so I assume it is in a talk page archive somewhere? Steven Crossin 13:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion of the use of alleged took place under the talk page section Alleged added in March 2017. Editors that took part in the discussion at that point included DrFleischman, Location, Richard-of-Earth, and later Darouet. The original rationale for using 'alleged' was the lack of RS for the entire article. This is discussed throughout the talk page. As far as I can know, there is no talk page archive on the article. Rgr09 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That indeed is the section I previously read through, and I’m not seeing any clear consensus agreed to there on the wording that should be in the article by any means - the discussion there is both very brief and very old. I also see some questions about the scope that the article should cover, and in fact the appropriate title for the page (with some conversations pointing to Project Mockingbird being the more appropriate title, with Operation Mockingbird covered in a subsection). One single source (an author called Davis?) makes me wonder whether it is an appropriate source for an articles content in its entirety. However, I must point out that all of this is moot - discussing issues at length on the talk page is a requirement before we normally would assist with a dispute and at this stage, there is no dispute. The matter hasn’t been discussed for a long time, nor has this latest change been discussed with the editor who made it, or any of the other contributors. I would suggest the scope of the article, as well as the term alleged be discussed in depth from here. I’ll close this thread out within 24 hours, but further discussion is really the next step here. Cheers. Steven Crossin 15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinged and so responding here. It would probably be worthwhile for us to come back to some of these issues on the talk page, since I believe the word "alleged" was a temporary solution that was meant to be replaced by a more nuanced discussion of the veracity and scope of Mockingbird. My recollection of the former dispute — this was last year I believe — is that very strong sources describe Mockingbird in detail, but that Rgr09 has also made strong arguments that these sources misinterpret Mockingbird's scope. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend that nuanced and more detailed discussion happens on the talk page. I would also recommend if anyone has access to a copy (digital preferred) of the book by Davis, that they provide a link to it or the relevant pages so other editors can see the original text for verification purposes. As an uninvolved editor it would be difficult to contribute to the discussion without access to the source texts. But that discussion for now belongs on the article talk page, we can assist down the road if need be. I’ll keep an eye on the talk page myself though - interested to see how this discussion goes. Steven Crossin 15:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Rusyns#White Croats (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nicoljaus (talk · contribs)
• Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an old historical dispute about the existence in the Early Middle Ages of the tribes of the "White Croats" and the localization of their lands. The question is complex and does not have a definite solution due to the extreme poverty of sources. In the book of the famous historian Sedov, the following conclusion is made: "Most researchers place these lands in the Czech Republic". Sedov himself believes that the Croats came to Dalmatia together with Avars from the Black Sea region and when he mentions the Croats near the Carpathian Mountains, he does not call them "White". However, the Rusyns article states unequivocally that this White Croats lived in the Ukrainian Carpathians, including Zakarpattia and Prykarpattia, with a reference to this very book of Sedov. I tried to fix this situation, but my opponent rejects all the arguments and reverts my edits, saying that I do not have "basic knowledge".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed this situation on the talk page of the article.

How do you think we can help?

I would like someone will explain to the opponent the WP:WIKIVOICE rule and why it is impossible to think out for the author of the book what he really means.

The name of White Croats is of general scholarly usage meaning all Northern medieval tribes of Croats, nevertheless their location in Bohemia, Lesser Poland or Western Ukraine. -- I would think that the opponent is mistaken in good faith, but he defends his POV in a completely destructive way. To reinforce his opinion, he uses sources in which the exact opposite is stated, but he does not care. So, to support this statement, he gave a link to the article in Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History ХОРВАТИ. The article directly says that it is a mistake to call the Eastern Croats of the Carpathian region "White Croats".--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is the editor who proposed the resolution, on my advice, and did not initially provide WP:OPPONENT summary of the dispute, replying in this section? It is really irritating that the editor is still WP:NOTLISTENING what I say, and misinterpreting that I am in a "mistaken" and "destructive way" reinforcing "my" opinion. The editor is constantly ignoring every other cited source in the article, or misintepreting them, cherry-picking them (like this source where ignored to understand that they are "often" called as White Croats), refusing to get the point that the these tribes are commonly called in the scholarship in such a way, that all the Wikipedian language articles are titled in such a way (White Croats), and that the article titles and naming conventions are based on predominant usage especially in English-language reliable sources. All the discussion is pointless because it is about a naming convention.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do I really need to leave this notification now? I had not do that it in time.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Volunteer Note - User:Nicoljaus - Yes. Notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• Notified Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I will try to moderate this dispute, if this is the sort of dispute where compromise can be reached. I see that there has been some unpleasant discussion above. In DRN, we comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Follow the rules. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential here. Overly long statements may help one feel better, but do not clarify the matter. Now, in one or two paragraphs, will each editor please explain, within 24 hours, what if anything should be done to improve the article? We are talking about the article, not the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion, but do not reply to each other's statements in the section for replies to me.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nicoljaus: From the article "Rusyns", as well as from other articles relating to this issue, the statement should be removed that the "Croats" who lived in the Carpathian region in the Early Middle Ages are precisely "White Croats". It can be mentioned that some consider them "White Croats", but most researchers localize this tribe in the Czech Republic (as Sedov says on p. 326) or "somewhere in Central Europe near Bavaria, beyond Hungary and next to the Frankish empire" (as Borri says). There can also be mentioned the reason for this error, as formulated in the Encyclopedia of Ukrainian History.

In my opinion, it is unacceptable to give out one of the fringe points of view as an indisputable fact. It is also unacceptable to misinterpret what is written in books in order to reconcile with the opinion that "all northern Croats are White Croats", which is not found in the sources.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kyuko (talk · contribs)
• Ke an (talk · contribs)
• Darius Musteikis (talk · contribs)
• Cullen328 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 18 December 2017, the topic of Adolfas Ramanauskas's purported involvement in the Holocaust was brought up in the article's talk page by 72.78.186.52 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Mention of this controversy was added to the article by myself on 7 May 2019, attempting to use NPOV language, include numerous sources, and avoid taking a stance on the controversy. Users Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Darius Musteikis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have repeatedly deleted any mention of the widely-reported controversies.

It should be mentioned that the former user has a history ([2]) of edit-warring on controversial topics regarding Lithuania.

Diffs of the users' reverts:

1. 08:43, 27 June 2019
2. 15:56, 26 June 2019 "fake news, not supported by the facts"
3. 02:43, 3 June 2019
4. 10:14, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1941 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
5. 00:09, 2 June 2019 "Part of A. Ramanauskas - Vanagas life in 1940 is still in discussion, so any mentioning and blaming of Jews persecution is unfair."
6. 22:37, 1 June 2019

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See Talk:Adolfas Ramanauskas#Controversy

How do you think we can help?

It is hoped that neutral parties can determine whether or not the controversies surrounding the article's subject are worthy of mention.

The thing is that there are no facts or attestations about participation in Holocaust presented in all accusations or campaigns against Adolfas Ramanauskas 'nom de guerre' Vanagas. I don't think we should include sentences which are opinions or accusations because they are 'strong criticism'. In this way encyclopedia would mirror multiple "fake news" possible. There is a statement from Lithuanian Jewish community, which says: "The Lithuanian Jewish Community in response to a difference of opinion regarding a monument commemorating Adolfas "Vanagas" Ramanauskas unveiled in Chicago underlines our support for the struggle by the Lithuanian nation for an independent Lithuanian state. The LJC does not question making monuments to honor those who fought for Lithuanian freedom so long as the facts don’t testify to more controversial facts implicating such fighters as Holocaust perpetrators." https://www.lzb.lt/en/2019/05/08/ljc-statement-on-adolfas-ramanauskas/ The Israeli ambassador to the Baltic States Amir Maimon made a point of visiting the daughter of Adolfas Ramanauskas to express his respect for her father, Lithuanian freedom fighter against the Soviet occupation: "He emphasised that his state respects and values our struggle for freedom which was led by my father Adolfas Ramanauskas-Vanagas. At the same time he noted that the attacks by two individuals were purely their own. The ambassador stressed that the goal of the visit is to get to know me and to strengthen the relations between our two nations," the famous partisan's daughter said. https://en.delfi.lt/archive/israel-sends-a-message-to-vanagaite-regarding-ramanauskas-vanagas.d?id=76657775. Israeli ambassador Amir Maimon also participated in the funeral of Adolfas Ramanauskas - Vanagas. So I don't see the point of emphasising and quoting 'strong criticism' and groundless accusations in the WP article about Lithuanian partisan Adolfas Ramanauskas. Participation in Holocaust is a serious charge and it must be substantiated by the facts. In my personal view Wikipedia should not serve as an amplifier for various arranged PR campaigns. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

At this stage, I won’t be committing to take on this one - but a few notes for editors involved as well as other potential volunteers - I don’t see that there’s been a lot of talk page discussion on this matter and I’d like to see more. The other thing I’d point out is that it’s our role to state what reliable sources say, not infer their meaning or intent on their behalf. An example I often refer to is Al-Qaeda - where the article states something along the lines of "has been designated a terrorist group by UN, USA etc" rather than "Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group" - we are explicitly attributing the characterisation to those that made it. In this article, a similar approach could be taken if the sources that make that characterisation are widespread and significant - if they are limited in coverage I would caution such an inclusion, or at the very least, how it is worded- exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

Lastly, this sentence I think is OK to include, though with some changes: "On May 4, 2019, a monument to Adolfas Ramanauskas was unveiled in Chicago, attracting strong criticism from Jewish and Russian organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the World Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Agency.[6][10][17][18][19][20][21]" - it is reasonably factual and accurate based on the sources that were referenced. However, the characterisation of the criticism as "strong" is inserted by us and should not be included. I would suggest changing the paragraph to some variant of "On May 4, 2019, a monument to Adolfas Ramanauskas was unveiled in Chicago, a decision which was criticised by some organisations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the World Jewish Congress, and the Jewish Agency.[6][10][17][18][19][20][21]."

I’ll leave it for another volunteer to take it from here. My reading of the sources regarding the characterisation of Ramanauskas and their purported activities has mixed thoughts in references provided and a mediator should attempt to get a view of the full picture before proceeding - some of the references give a slanted view of the subject from what I can see. Steven Crossin 10:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would be happy to reword the paragraph as suggested. I am of the opinion that the article should acknowledge the accusations without taking a stance on them. Kyuko (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

article is not a collection of false accusations, media campaigns or fake news - it contradicts the objectivity principle. Kyuko's suggested method of 'accusations without taking a stance on them' is not practised even in the biased media. -- Ke an (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has now notified the other editors. The discussion on the article talk page was a week ago, and has not continued. I am placing this case request on hold to allow the editors to resume discussion on the article talk page, as also advised by the previous volunteer. If discussion resumes and is inconclusive, a volunteer will be requested to moderate the discussion. Report disruptive editing to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• BD2412 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

BD2412 owns the page and will not allow even simple obvious edits and refuses to discuss most everything. There is a vast difference in education between us. I feel when I note the difference, s/he gets pissy but I am a phd, published scholar, etc. Last time this happened, BD2412 had me blocked for 6 months. I'm trying to avoid this happening again. Should I give up or is there a potential resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried on the kiwi irc for help and was banned for asking.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can allow editors to edit articles.

The article, Corporation, is a level-3 vital article that is one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, and is the product of the work of literally hundreds of contributors who have made thousands of edits to the page. A little over six months ago, this IP appeared on the talk page announcing that (in their view) pretty much everything in the article was wrong, and they intended to rewrite it line by line to conform with their views. This involved deletion by the IP of large blocks of well-sourced text, including deletion of the citations, based on their belief that the sources were wrong. This conduct is unacceptable, and was reverted. The IP then edit-warred and ignored repeated requests on the talk page (which is now entirely occupied with these discussions) to draft specific proposed language and obtain consensus for it on the article talk page. The IP had previously been blocked for a different offense, and therefore was then CheckUser blocked by User:Courcelles for six months. Lastly, the IPs self-aggrandizing assertion that there is a "vast difference in education between us" is incorrect. I happen to have a Juris Doctor and an LL.M., and am also a published scholar, including having published specifically in the area of the legal theory of corporations. I would prefer not to out myself here, but would be willing to prove my credentials to an admin willing to maintain confidentiality. bd2412 T 00:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Based on what is written, bd2412 reverts every little edit I make because s/he doesn't like that my opinion is that the article is factually incorrect. And s/he's upset because I have posted a lot on the talk page, which is true. So what? It is also true that I deleted a block of text and tried to improve it. So what? bd2412 believes the article is great, so he has a problem with this, but is it really a problem?

Regarding education, why am I the only editor citing peer reviewed articles? If you have an education, where are yours, bd2412? And I disgree; most of the sources for the article are not high quality. Look at the first few paragraphs, where there are not any good cites.

But most importantly, the article is factually incorrect and unorganized. It should be broken into separate articles, one for corporation in general, one for the business corporation, one for non-profit, one for gov't corporation, and one for corporate sole, which is a non-profit. Putting them altogether makes little sense. Non-profits don't have stock markets. Next, explain the conceptions of the corporate form from concession theory to natural person, to nexus of contracts. Read what bd2412 wrote when I asked what the mainstream pov was related to corp. government and judge for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to someone who describes an article as "factually incorrect" while trying to delete reliably sourced content from the article. I don't really care how much any editor writes on an article talk page. It is the burden of that editor to obtain consensus to make contested changes. If this editor is able to obtain consensus for their proposed changes, I will gladly abide by that consensus. Thus far, they do not seem to have persuaded anyone but themselves of their correctness. bd2412 T 01:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It is significant that both here and in one of their first edits on Corporation talk, user 198.27.150.168 makes the claim that the article is factually incorrect. The central theme seems to be that this editor knows the Truth and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong. I am reminded of the old Wikipedia maxim that "defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as 'verifiability, not truth'". Although not a current Wikipedia policy, the idea remains in the Verifiability policy that "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

The objecting editor, who so far has restricted their edits in main space to the article on Corporations and its Talk page, should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy.

As an aside, I note their refusal to engage in even the minor politeness of signing their edits on this page or on talk pages. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Great Expectations#Bold for character names (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chaosdruid (talk · contribs)
• Prairieplant (talk · contribs)
• Clarityfiend (talk · contribs)
• Rwood128 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

List of characters had character's name in boldface

I deboldened as per MOS:BOLDFACE

Reverted, several times, with other editors claiming it looks better, so "why not just leave it" and "there are others" and "are you going to fix all of them then?"

I tried to explain MOS on the talk page, but to no avail

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Offered MOS links Tried to explain why manual of style is to be at least loosly adhered to Discussed changing boldened names into headers for each character Offered Bullet points as compromise

How do you think we can help?

Help them to understand MOS and how we should apply it Show them why all Wikipedia editors should follow MOS as much as possible

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. The filing editor appears to be correct as to the Manual of Style. Is this a discussion where compromise is possible (and is being sought), or is this a yes-no or A-B question? If this is a yes-no or A-B question, this may not be the best forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sander Jan Klerk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HM Wilburt (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• Marvinvw (talk · contribs)
• Randykitty (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is about subject: Sander Jan Klerk. Most of the discussion was on my talkpage, see section Misguided (started by Marvinvw). After this Marvinvw continued on the talkpage of the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sander_Jan_Klerk).

Marvinvw keeps placing uncredited acting roles on subject's page and undoing other editors changes to them. The actor is not in the actual end credit roll of these movies. There are no official sources that verify his involvement in the films. There is only one sentence in a press interview. All other sources are user-generated online resumes like IMDB, Mandy and Spotlight, etc (not RS). Marvinvw keeps reverting edits and replying with walls of text saying that he checked with managed etc but delivers no proof. But none of that is verifiable.

I believe user RandyKitty summed it up perfectly: Marvinvw, nobody is calling you a liar. The fact is, however, that you cannot put things in WP based on your own knowledge, but only based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So what the actor says is irrelevant. IMDb can be edited by anybody, just like WP, and is therefore not an admissible source. If you have sources such as national newspaper, those might be acceptable as sources (if they are not interviews). --Randykitty

But Marvinvw refuses to accept that his own personal knowledge is not verifiable for others. Looking at the Dutch wiki of the same subject, Marvinvw seems to be doing the same there. It could be that Marvinvw has a coi with the subject and therefor refuses to accept that wiki need independent verifiable soruces, but the coi is beyond this DRN.

An outsiders opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked for credible RS sources/cov. Engaged on talkpage of subject and my own. Tried to make better/more factual edits to subject page (but got undone).

How do you think we can help?

1. Make clear to Marvinvw that personal knowledge without independent verifiable sources is not a credible source for WP.

2. It could also help to state that user-generated online resumes like imdb/mandy/spotlight are not credible RS sources.

3. Maybe answer the question if uncredited roles are even Enclopedic/worthy to place on Wiki page.

Please see reverted edit because it was too long.

Summary:

HM Wilburt has been warned for vandalizing actors, WP:POINT, insulting moderators many times.

This escalated after his page "Vincent van Ommen" was deleted, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vincent_van_Ommen

100% of his other edits were not constructive.

The Hitman's Bodyguard credit was indeed mentioned by the national newspaper AD, which is 1 of the 3 biggest newspapers in Holland, which was then added as a source in the article on WP. The Hitman's Bodyguard was mentioned by them, not by the actor in the article. That is why the addition to the page was made and it was added as source. I thought that things mentioned by an independent journalist in an independent national newspaper were considered valid sources. Is this not true? See reverted edit, credit also confirmed by production company and management.

HM Wilburt immediately started removing the credit very aggressively, before adding any more "source?" citations. Perhaps he didn't want people to see the source? I have no idea what the reason for this is. Maybe because it happened before with actor Robert de Hoog, where he rigorously removed credits too and I corrected him (see my dutch talk page). Or many other actors for that matter. The spree seems somewhat random. That same day he tried to remove the credit from imdb and said in a discussion on wp: Look, it's not even on imdb so it must be a fake credit (manipulating sources, he is known for that and has been warned for that on many occasions), even though imdb is not a real source and it was actually there that morning).

Edit: I see that, as we speak, you (HM Wilburt) is trying to add "uncredited" to all of actor's tv series on IMDB too? Could you please refrain from doing that? Actor is in the end credits of "Goede Tijden, Slechte Tijden", so please stop this vandalism. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1892541/

See reverted edit from 19:39 on this page for complete information Marvinvw (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The filer is not particular happy on criticism and being rebuffed. In one of the discussion, he created this. How reliable is an editor who load and clear starts manipulating websites to attack other editors? That is not fair or civil. But this is the battleground mentality used by HM Wilburt to push his idea's. It is very annoying to see that valid sources are removed, followed by source request and rejection of every source offered. Unless HM Wilburt stops acting as he does now, this just going into one direction: AN/I. The Banner talk 23:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Comparing IMDd present with IMDb 2017 shows a sudden loss of credits. Very remarkable but in line with the earlier mentioned manipulation. The Banner talk 23:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

And this removal is a typical example of HM Wilburts treatment of editors with a different opinion. The Banner talk 00:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Note to other volunteers - I actually fumbled through the reference cited for this actor's uncredited role in the film with some assistance from editors from the Dutch Wikipedia - short story, it does state that the actor appeared in the film in an uncredited appearance, however this was an interview and was stated by the actor. The newspaper it was published in is reasonably notable in the Netherlands, but I've been unable to find any other sources to back this up (the poster of the thread is indeed correct about places like IMDB not being reliable sources). I'm working on another dispute so I'll leave this one to another editor to take a look at. Steven Crossin 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified one of the editors but not the other two. The filing editor seems to be asking for a volunteer to restate policies and guidelines, which is not what this noticeboard is for, especially since an administrator, User:Randykitty, has already tried to explain. However, if the other editors are properly notified, a volunteer will be asked to look at this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Party note I was never notified, I just have this page on my watchlist and saw familiar names come by. Only quite some time later I was mentioned on this page, but I still do not have any notification. The Banner talk 23:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is just another way of user HM Wilburt to try and restate policies and guidelines indeed. The typical WP: POINT method. Something of his has been removed because of a certain reason, next step, attacking all other actors profiles and looking for clever ways to do it, preferably with a change in the set of rules, so he can get his way. Look for example here:https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Film A short film of his was removed, next, making a plan and trying to remove all short films of others. Everything is about emotion and revenge for this user. There also is no dispute anymore, because the credits the discussion was about are removed from the page (real, confirmed credits). What should be disputed is the way HM Wilburt tried to edit, change and manipulate my post here. Twice. Can someone please do something about that? Because what is there to discuss if user is going to remove what others say?Marvinvw (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Marvinw has removed the WP:NPA twice now from this page. He has been warned to not attack other editors and comment on the content. Yet, he refuses to comment on content. This is his attitude around many edits he doesn't agree with. I will not undo the NPA tag any more in an effort to avoid an edit-war. Please comment on content and not other editors. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Like MarnetteD says: there is no personal attack here - do not remove another editors post! You are part of the contentMarvinvw (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• The content is the uncredited mentions on Sander Jan Klerk. And since admin Randykitty already said on the talkpages you should only place verifiable information on wiki. Your own opinion isn't verifiable. It seems an admin has already removed all the unsourced nonsense from the page, resolving the DRN. In the future listen to your fellow editors (and an admin) and stop undoing other editors contribs after you've been told so. As far as i know this DRN can be closed because admin Randykitty resolved it. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• This mediation attempt can be closed, as this request will not end in a respectful compromise. This case can better be escalated to AN/I. The Banner talk 07:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Note to participants: @The Banner, HM Wilburt, Marvinvw, and Randykitty: This request seems to include allegations of personal attacks, off-wiki attacks, and other user conduct. This noticeboard cannot evaluate user conduct, nor can it evaluate edit disputes where the discussion is largely focussed on user conduct. I strongly advise the users to file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --MrClog (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I submitted the DRN for a content question, not a conduct issue. How Marvinvw and The Banner react to the content issue is how they always react - they sway discussions away from content and towards conduct. In my opinion there is no conduct issue, it's just how they are. We can't fix that. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Political spectrum#Argument for the image's removal from this article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)
• Tilon3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

superficial dispute: usage of an image depicting the conventional left-right political spectrum;

underlying problem: user having troubles to unterstand what Wikipedia is about (verifiability, not truth) and that his opnion doesn't trump academic sources

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

pointed him to the attached references and the talk page

How do you think we can help?

by giving a third oponion

There's been no talk page discussion as of yet, so this is extremely premature. I will not be participating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree this is premature. Talk page discussion has just started. Closing for now. Steven Crossin 00:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Hurledhandbook (talk · contribs)
• Pinchme123 (talk · contribs)
• 73.19.20.255 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Me and one other person do not believe immigration detention under Bush and Obama and Trump administration family separation policy (2017–Present) should be included in the examples for Internment. Even after bringing up many examples to prove why it shouldn’t be included on the examples, this person will not listen and keeps editing these back into examples on this page. Currently I have tried to edit it back but this person, pinchme123, has kept editing them back in and an admin told me to stop deleting them from the examples. This needs to be dissolved because false information needs to be removed ASAP.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have had discussions on the talk page and they refuse to answer back to our points.

How do you think we can help?

Make sure the correct information is on Wikipedia and help us come to a consensus.

This dispute moved quite quickly; I have only just noticed a new comment on the discussion page within the last few hours (at most) and was not aware this had been elevated as a "dispute," as I was not notified.

I have since responded there (my comment diff) to restate my position that at least one entry should be included because it relies on multiple reliable sources, with multiple experts included in those sources. I have held off from adding any further sources to Internment - which have since been provided via the RfC at List of concentration and internment camps - in order to allow the discussion at the one related article conclude before editing the other. The one substantive edit I have made since that other RfC began was to split the U.S. detention center entry into two time periods, to allow for discussion of inclusion or exclusion of either/both, without either unduly influencing the other.

Someone more experienced than I may wish to look, but as I understand it, the general consensus for Internment has been to include the U.S. detention centers from 2017 onward, as it was added and then supported by sources via an organic editing process. Currently there are at least three editors on the talk page supporting its inclusion: myself, @Doremo:, and @Dogru144:.

I'm not sure whether or how the RfC on List of concentration and internment camps about this same subject should affect this article as well, but at the moment, there is no consensus there to remove U.S. detention centers from that article, with the majority of editors supporting its inclusion.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Addendum/Question: Is there a reason I am listed as the "creator" of this dispute resolution request in the table at the top of this noticeboard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchme123 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment From looking at the article and talk page, it appears that there is still an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and that several parties to this dispute (as well as the actual editor who has been reverting edits that remove the addition of the at-issue examples from the list, who does not appeared to have showed up on the talk page) have not been listed in this request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• For the record, Hurledhandbook continues to argue on the talk page of List of concentration and internment camps, seemingly to me in bad faith, while apparently Wikipedia:Failing to get the point. Further, their last contribution resorts to name calling (diff of this, see their point #4) and putting words in my mouth (same diff, point #2).
• At this point, discussion is no longer productive so I think I should disengage, unless an administrator or other editor has some productive advice for how to proceed. But given that Hurledhandbook appears to have made their account specifically to argue their Wikipedia:POV on specifically Internment and List of concentration and internment camps, opened this dispute resolution after only one comment directed at me (they - not me - opened this dispute here 19 minutes after their first comment on Talk:Internment, and only listed myself and a stale IP address), this really feels like harassment. I just don't know enough about proper procedures to know 1) whether or not this is harassment; and 2) how to go about having it properly handled.
• I've tried to productively respond, in good faith, with reliable sources, to points being made. But I am at my wits' end.
• --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Per Pinchme123, I think this needs to be closed until there is some indication of a willingness to discuss the issues rather than merely throwing walls of text and unsubstantiated accusations. Discussion on the article talk page is ongoing. MPS1992 (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly I have been defending points correctly and proving your points wrong. You are just failing to get the point and since I’m proving your wrong argument and destroying your points you have to come complain and say I’m harassing you. You are clearly not neutral In your editing on this. I have been discussing in good faith and backing my claims up with facts while you have not.

Hurledhandbook (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of online encyclopedias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PCHS-NJROTC (talk · contribs)
• FuzzyCatPotato (talk · contribs)
• Avernarius (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On June 22, 2019, I removed RationalWiki from List of online encyclopedias on the basis that RationalWiki itself states that it is not an encyclopedia. This action was challenged by User:Avernarius, and we discussed on the talk page, coming to the conclusion that RationalWiki should be included despite its own views of itself due to WP:RS coverage, and RationalWiki was re-entered by Avernarius as a science-related encyclopedia per the talk page. User:FuzzyCatPotato, who is a former Board of Trustees member for the RationalMedia Foundation (who has expressed an interest in running for it again in the near future) entered the conversation and proceeded to challenge the move from the "general reference" section to the "science and technology" section, claiming that the WP:RS describe RationalWiki as a general reference. I have reviewed the sources FCP have provided, and I do not see anything stating that RationalWiki is a "general reference encyclopedia," rather I see the sources describing it as an encyclopedic resource covering pseudoscience topics, which seems would solidly put the wiki under science and technology. RationalWiki's mission statement, which explicitly says that it is not a general encyclopedia and does not cover topics unrelated to it's mission, pretty much seals the deal per WP:SELFSOURCE in my opinion. Disclaimer: I am a sysop-lite on Conservapedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The three of us have discussed the matter on the talk page, but finding a solution that is acceptable to both me (PCHS-NJROTC) and FuzzyCatPotato seems to be tough at this point.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping to peacefully establish consensus as to where to include RationalWiki in the list, if at all.

see below FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The main task of the list is, to find the wiki at all. The characterization is secondary. The solution could be a note, stating the diverging views. Have fine day! AVS (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a question that can be resolved by discussion (such as of how to list it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  If you mean at the talk page, I doubt it. Although I want to keep this about the content and not the editors, part of the reason I decided to go this route was due to previous encounters with FuzzyCatPotato. I'm hoping that discussion will remain more WP:CIVIL and productive here. This is my first time at DRN since joining Wikipedia over ten years ago, so apologies if I seem "new" to this, but I am hoping that some discussion here and uninvolved opinions can resolve the matter. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 02:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - FuzzyCatPotato do you have any issue with it being classified as science based on the sources included in PCHS-NJROTC's reply on the talk page? SpoonLuv (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  This case has been open for a week, FCP is no where to be seen, and everyone else seems to not care where it is placed, just that it does belong in there. Does anyone other than FCP have a different opinion of the sources than my own? Obviously I think the sources favor my position over FCP's (the one source blatantly favors my position), and FCP kind of made this change in spite of on-going discussion, does anyone have any objection to me undoing FCP's change, and then we can reopen this if he returns and objects to it? To be honest, assuming good faith, I'm not even really sure why he made the change, going against the position of the very organization he officially represents. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  @SpoonLuv: yes. I've provided 2 reliable sources which describe RationalWiki as an encyclopedia:

  https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3151?journalCode=pto& I suggest the encyclopedic resource http://rationalwiki.org as a starting point.

  https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 "RationalWiki (http: //rationalwiki.org/) is also a wiki encyclopedia project website, which was, in turn, created as a liberal response to Conservapedia"

  AVS also provided 1 reliable source which describes RationalWiki as an encyclopedia:

  https://www.thedailybeast.com/kill-all-citations-sloppy-sourcing-plagues-kill-all-normies-book-on-sjws-and-the-alt-right But Nagle never mentions RationalWiki, another online encyclopedia

  PCHS-NJROTC has provided 1 primary source https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Mission and claims it is evidence against including RationalWiki in the "general reference" section. Quoting:

  "RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world."

  At most this suggests RationalWiki should not be in the "general reference" section, but it doesn't suggest which section it should be in. If we're willing to look at RationalWiki's content, which appears to be what PCHS-NJROTC has done to categorize it as "science", then we see that its content spans all of the sections on the page: antiquity, pop culture, math, film, music, philosophy, politics, history, religion, science. This suggests the best section is the least specific section: general reference, despite RationalWiki's protestations. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not challenging that these sources describe RationalWiki as an encyclopedia, I am challenging the claim that these sources describe RationalWiki as a general reference encyclopedia. I think the disconnect is that somehow FCP is not understanding that this list is not a list of wikis, but rather a list of encyclopedias; a science and technology encyclopedia is indeed an encyclopedia, and that's how RW is best described per the reliable sources. FCP wants to introduce WP:OR into the discussion, but in addition to the obvious policy problems with that (including WP:COI), we have the problem that even though some of the topics FCP mentioned are not exactly scientific subjects, they are covered from the standpoint of RationalWiki's mission, and despite what FCP says, articles are routinely delete as being "hopelessly off-mission". Another problem with FCP's argument is that, while Rational-Wiki may have some content that is not science related (especially in the "Fun" namespace), Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica have articles unrelated to pop culture and fiction (HowTo:Play Conservatroll and HowTo:Play RationalTroll at Uncyclopedia are not exactly either of those, for example). The hopeless idea of Wikipedians determining what Rational-Wiki is through original research is why I think we should stick to WP:RS, which (including R-W itself) classify Rational-Wiki as an encyclopedia covering issues related to pseudoscience. Rational-Wiki's own state mission is to refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, document "crank" ideas, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism (both of which someone from Rational-Wiki's POV would associate with pseudoscience), and analyze how these topics are covered by the media, so clearly Rational-Wiki is primarily a science and technology encyclopedia, not a general reference like Wikipedia or Encarta, which covers a wide variety of topics. I'm interested in the uninvolved community's opinion on this. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

• I went ahead and made a WP:BOLD move sinc{e there doesn't seem to be any objection to my position, and FCP has been silent despite making edits since this discussion started, I say lets leave this open a few more days just to see if he chimes in now that his edit has been reverted and close it out in about two or three days if no objections from him or anyone else. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Sahaja Yoga (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Freelion (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another user Alexbrn I believe is editing the article on Sahaja Yoga tendentiously. He has a long history of debunking articles that feature information that does not comply with mainstream medical science. I have been blocked twice for attempting to bring him to heal for ignoring the BRD cycle, removing reliable sources, and skewing the article by cherrypicking content from sources, also he is insisting on certain interpretations of sources that are unbalanced and only promote his view.

I have provided accurate edit summaries, he is very brief. I have documented every one of my changes on the talk page in numbered points. He continues to ignore this and threaten me with being blocked again.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The talk page as mentioned. I also reported him for edit warring.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a referee to insist that he engage properly with the points raised on the talk page.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other editor. Also, the other editor has filed an inquiry at the fringe theory noticeboard. If the filing editor notifies the other editor properly, they need to agree on whether to have this case discussed here or at FTN. A case cannot be handled in two places at once. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) (also posts while logged out, mainly from IP 62.190.148.115)
• Woovee (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Woovee previosuly insisted on deletion of section on disputed reunions of the band such as Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X-T. Rex, on the grounds that the late Marc Bolan *was* the band.

Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan, claiming that since they died after the band's existence ended and arwe therefore not relevant, even though such details are normal for a band page.

It seems to me that Woovee is intent on turning the T.Rex (band) page into a second Marc Bolan page, based on the fan POV of "No Bolan, No T.Rex".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Request for Comment - two other members also contributed. Has gone quiet with no further contributions. Woovee tried hard to personalise the discussion accusing me of promoting Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X.T.Rex and accusing me of being somehow fraudulent because I use IP addresses and only occasionally use my account (User:Romomusicfan). Woovee made similar attacks on one of the other two contributors.

How do you think we can help?

What is needed is arbitration of some sort. If this is not the appropriate place then please direct me to the right place.

The ip says "Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan". That's wrong, it hasn't escalated as the current version is the same as the one of on "12:43 3 July" right before the ip opens a rfc, about the same topic/section. -- Woovee (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Our rules say : "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments".... "Continue on article talk page".Woovee (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Vicgerami (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created a page for Peter Perkowski, the most high-profile LGBT attorney present today, suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why or how user: Athaenara accused me of getting paid for creating this page, tagged the profile deletion, ignored my explanation as to why it should remain and subsequently it was deleted. I did NOT, do not and will not be paid to create a Wikipedia page. A baseless accusation should not immediately cause a profile submission to dissapear.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I wrote back to Athaenara and explained why it should not be deleted, but to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Have several editors read and evaluate the profile of Peter Perkowski. Let them independently decide whether his profile is noteworthy.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jonathan Haidt (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chrisvacc (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A few months ago there was some poorly written content on the entry for Psychologist Jonathan Haidt. User Ronz added the "Written like Advert" tag. I saw this and resolved these issues, and after resolving, I removed the tag. A few months later, when user Ronz noticed the tag removed he reverted and put the tag back. Then Ronz began Edit Warring with several editors who attempted to remove the tag saying there was no justification with for it. They kept trying to remove it, saying it looked fine, and he kept putting the tag back. He also added an additional "Conflict of Interest" Tag. His justification was that there were SPA accounts that did some editing, even though there's no evidence those SPA accounts were any type of COI. I attempted to open a discussion on User:Ronz's talk Page, where I linked to the Steven Pinker article because A) Pinker's is one of the articles listed in Wikipedia:Good Articles... (Wikipedia's list of exemplary articles) and B) Steven Pinker is a scientist comparable to Jonathan Haidt. Since the articles of Steven Pinker (listed as an exemplary article) and Jonathan Haidt's were very much alike, I thought this was an appropriate comparison but User:Ronz was unwilling to compromise. I opened a discussion on the Talk page of the Haidt article, and he still was unwilling to compromise. I compromised and changed the tags to "general cleanup" and "neutrality disputed." When he saw this, he got mad and started Edit Warring again and Tag Bombing, putting a total of 6 tags on the article.

Several other editors agree that the article is fine, but in my opinion, User:Ronz feels he's the prime dictator of these entries. I explained to User:Ronz that matters like these should be handled democratically, but he's been unresponsive to attempts to "Talk" on his Talk Page, and on the main article's Talk Page and prefers to keep reversing everyone's edits and adding numerous inappropriate tags.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There's no evidence of a COI. User:Ronz claims that when the article was first starting, someone "Copy and Pasted" parts of the Subject's websites. The tag "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" was used although that was not the case. Most of the Citations are from New York Times, TED, Wall Street Journal, Google Scholar and similar websites. User appears to be adding random tags. Potentially a COI?

How do you think we can help?

We need an objective observer to see if ANY tags are appropriate for this article. The other editors say that the article needs no tags, but we need an third party observer to verify. Thank you.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:River-kind (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• River-kind (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I entered the sentence:

For a secular practice derived from the Lotus Sutra, please consider an unpublished article entitled Nichiren Secular - A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good.

into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secular_Buddhism&oldid=906439550 and it was immediately removed. This matter was not resolved in talk.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Please advise

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Natalia Dyer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk · contribs)
• Broccoli and Coffee (talk · contribs)
• Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs)
• Magnolia54 (talk · contribs)
• Jaqen (talk · contribs)
• Muzilon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There seems to be a factual conflict concerning the age and birth year of Natalia Dyer. According to conflicting sources, several of them claim Dyer is a 24-year-old born in 1995 whereas others claim she is a 22-year old born in 1997. Certain editors such as Broccoli and Coffee, Thelonggoneblues and myself believe she was born in 1995 whereas other editors such as Magnolia54 and Jaqen believe she was born in 1997. I will admit I used to believe she was born in 1997.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As a compromise, Muzilon, Broccoli and Coffee and myself have agreed to add an endnote to the article mentioning both the 1997 sources and the 1995 sources.

How do you think we can help?

I think you can help by explaining why the endnote is a good compromise.

Please disregard this notice. We've officially agreed that Dyer was born in 1995 based on this reliable source. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright problem: Kenyon Farrow (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aquariusveritas (talk · contribs)
• Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

And investigation of potential copyright issue has been lodged. The copyright issue surrounds the listing of books written by and awards received by the subject. I believe the copyright investigation is incorrect and was neither investigated or in the spirit of Wikipedia, corrected. I would like to receive an investigation on the article in question and cleared if no copyright infringement is found. If there is a copyright infringement, I would like to receive help on how to resolve it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have corresponded with Justlettersandnumbers, reviewed the copyright complaint and applied corrections where I found validity to the issue. I have also questioned the nature of the claim and issued the judgment that no copyright infringement is in place because listing the title of books by publication date cannot be copyrighted.

How do you think we can help?

I think that you can review the claim and make a judgment on the validity of what of the dispute. If their is validity to the dispute, provide suggestions on how to solve the problem. If the dispute is unwarranted, remove the block on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyon_Farrow

• Volunteer Note - This noticeboard is not a forum for resolving copyright disputes. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously (even if no one else seems to care about copyright violations), and the judgment of the administrators at Copyright Concerns Problems is final. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Murder of Hannah Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chaheel Riens (talk · contribs)
• Berean Hunter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Berean Hunter believes that a comment about the health of the convicted murderer should be in the lede, even though it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Chaheel Riens believe that it is not relevant, and while it could possibly be placed elsewhere in the article with some work, it is certainly not worthy of the lede, and without extra work not worthy of the article itself.

Berean Hunter has refused to remove the information while discussion is ongoing, and reverted attempts to remove in the meantime.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Started discussion on the talk page, which has not progressed

How do you think we can help?

Arbitration between editors, content, and clarification of the meaning of BRD - whether it has been interpreted correctly in this instance.

• Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - It appears that User:Berean Hunter says that this dispute does not need to be mediated at this point. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I would still like clarification of the BRD process and whether it has been correctly interpreted in this instance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Obviously the BRD cycle has not been applied properly in this case, because we have a disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. I do not intend to act as a judge to decide whether one of the editors is at fault or whether the disagreement simply happened. I see that another editor has offered an opinion. This noticeboard isn't here to decide whether and where there was fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This one's clear cut to me, so I've commented as such at the talk page directly. No need for an extended discussion here. Closing. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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