Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 197

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

• CSQ Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Edtilley4 User:Deb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For 4-years I have requested the addition of one of the few Sustainable Societies Programmes in North America and Europe.

CSQ Research curates: - SSP (Sustainable Societies Programme) - csq1.org/SSP - WAOH (The World at our Hands) Econometric Library - csq1.org/WAOH - 40+-research articles - seven 600-page theses in Sustainable Societies (World Peace) - two engineering plans for World Peace (one UN-led and one Finance-led) - SCP - an alternative to GDP as the Social Contract Product Index is a scientifically causal indicator of advance and collapse in economies - ACT - One-vote proven corrections for economic and social collapse in 70% of 207 nations today ,,,

CSQ Research's 1) existence, and 2) publications and new sciences and planning are as important as Wiki founders aspired for their entity to be; where Wikipedia's value has diminished into a peer-reviewed academic mediocrity really hasn't it? Wikipedia's processes are not scientific, you post subjective, qualitative, non-quantitatively defendable definitions and directions - from time to time; where CSQ Research does not. Look to definitions of Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal, Socialism, and a dozen dangerous misdirections in Religion - Bibles are lessons in how to build sustainable societies... as a provable fact, but you will see no explanation of this reality at Wikipedia.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Deb#CSQ_Research

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Permit the quick deletion of CSQ Research to be reversed so that I can update a proper description of a socially important addition to Wikipedia - unmolested by subjective and qualitative quick-deletes

I don't have a lot to say on this. The article was deleted in 2017 after being nominated by User:GreenMeansGo as an A7/G11. I agreed with the assessment, and User:Edtilley4 was informed of the reasons at the time. Just recently he has been to my talk page a couple of times to complain. I have advised him on the Wikipedia guidelines but he hasn't shown any understanding of how the project works so I don't feel I can contribute anything further. He also didn't inform me of this discussion. Deb (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's a bit difficult to parse this meandering opening statement. From the looks of it, an editor with a conflict of interest wrote an advertorial article on a subject that doesn't meet our notability requirements, and it was deleted three years ago.

From the looks of it, all this seems to just be the pet project of Edward Tilley. They've certainly registered a lot of websites, but it's not clear that these actually represent any bona fide organizations. They mostly just seem to be recycling the same talking points, the same stock images, and trying to sell Tilly's books. There seems to be very little to suggest that there is actually any living breathing human behind any of this other than Tilley himself.

Regardless, there seems to be basically zero independent published coverage, or really any sources at all outside CSQ's own penchant for registering lots and lots of websites. All in all, the other CSQ (Cotton Structure and Quality) seems to be abundantly more notable. So...there's really nothing to do here. The article should probably not be undeleted, and if recreated, should probably be deleted again. GMG ^talk 11:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant - but I will add that Einstein sat on the theory of relativity unrecognized for 20-years before it and he was accepted as one of the greatest minds and contributors of the 20th century. Your argument imagines that leaders in science come equipped with a cheerleading team in their hip pocket. I spend hours in the research and development of fact and science that can often invalidates the career contributions and teachings of tens-of-thousands of academics that make a living teaching our kids failed theory that collapse our societies reliably, just like Einstein did. Would you expect a glowing endorsement from these peers? Likely not; and Einstein obviously received none either.

This line of discussion is irrelevant because CSQ Research exists as a Fact Tank, just like a long list of other Think Tanks presented by Wikipedia. You might not like, nor like to acknowledge the extensive libraries at WAOH, or that "heavy-lifters" are hardly a new phenomenon - I've run a minor sports organization with thousands of members by myself as well. By virtue of the fact that the entity, programs, and sciences exist, CSQ Research warrants its presence known without the necessity of spending millions to advertise the fact. CSQ has followings at blogs you haven't noticed in your researches, but again, this is not relevant to the fact that we exist and are noteworthy. Edtilley4 (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ed, cut the shit. You're not Einstein. You're a guy who registered a bunch of websites. No one cares. You're not notable. Stop wasting our time. GMG ^talk 16:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually a guy that created two Engineering Plans for World Peace, six 600-page theses, a new very-well-researched and proven science and data science, after a notable lifelong career in high tech development and billion-dollar program and executive leadership, oh - and I raised five kids too. How is it that you can introspect to suppose you would know Turing or any other great leader or thinker when you are clearly predisposed to believe it impossible?

• Bub - If proving Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Processes are a joke is your goal, you needn't waste your time. Excuse yourself from this discussion if you really aren't interested in contributing anything - other than the reinforcement of an anal-retentive fellow volunteer? You are no peer of mine, you are unqualified to dispose of discussions that offend you, and if you get confused about academic discussion easily, you're not a benefit to wikipedia as a volunteer or other

Edtilley4 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• You've done an awful lot of things to have basically no coverage in independent published sources. GMG ^talk 18:03, 24 September 2020 (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

• Cliff Thorburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are two linked points of contention. The first is about the classification of a particular 1974 tournament, but may affect the description of other tournaments in the article. The second is a disagreement over whether there were one or 1974 tournaments in which Cliff Thorburn defeated Julien St Denis 13-11 in the final.

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

Talk:Cliff_Thorburn#1974_Championship [[1]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be useful to have an independent proposal for how the 1974 tournament (or tournaments) should be classified in the article. Perhaps the current headings for tournaments (Ranking / Non-ranking / Amateur ) in the "Career Finals" should be changed? The distinction doesn't always exist - even the World Snooker Championship which is regarded as a professional event now includes selected amateur players.

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

• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Greyfell (talk · contribs)
• Mvbaron (talk · contribs)
• Newimpartial (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article is heavily POV, relies on stridently biased academics, misrepresents the origin of the conspiracy theory and frames the content with one of the most egregious examples of anti-conservative bias I've seen on WP. I have addressed many of these concerns in Talk, and have labelled the article POV aa I and three other editors have raised POV concerns in the last 3-4 weeks. I have a group of editors refusing to engage in honest resolution of the POV issues I've raised. One of them is WP:WL me constantly, and they each are reverting the POV tag without working in good faith to resolve the issue with the article's neutrality.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#Anti-Semitism_as_an_Essential_Quality, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#POV_Article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article is rife with anti-conservative bias and POV. Need some help coordinating changes to the content. At present the current group of interested editors are stifling dissent and refusing to even ackowledge that other editors have a legitimate concern about neutrality. I and three other editors have expressed those converns and we've gotten stonewalled.

Based on the IP's talk page comments, this appears to be retaliatory for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:47.197.54.139 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: ). I decline to participate in bad-faith dispute resolution. When the WP:3RR edit warring issues have been resolved I will reevaluate. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I made note of my intention to seek dispute resolution in the Talk page more than 24 hours ago. Please engage to this issue in good faith rather than continuing to stonewall dissenting voices. I'm trying to fix a broken article, that's all.47.197.54.139 (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2020 (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

• 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dvtch (talk · contribs)
• Beshogur (talk · contribs)
• Solavirum (talk · contribs)
• Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs)
• Ahmetlii (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is currently a debate over how to display the combatant section of this conflict. Currently it is displayed that Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan are in the "Alleged Category". Most users agree this in disingenuous and that the international media and academic consensus is that they are fighting as combatants, therefore the term alleged should be dropped. This issue is further complicated by the fact Azerbaijan and Turkey claimed that the Kurdish terrorist group, the PKK is fighting for Armenia, a claim not substantiated outside of Turkish and Azerbaijani media and dismissed by academics also in the alleged sections. The issue being that it shows these two claims as being qualitatively equal despite many seeing that as completely factually inaccurate. When I asked the users (who I believe to be moderators who keep the content this way and happen to be biased towards one side in the war) to change this, they continuously stonewall any effort towards consensus. They are understandably biased towards one side in the war and through off and ignore any discussion of changing it. With users even claiming those who want it changed are sock puppets (that claim was ignored and turns out the user who filed it themselves was a sock puppet). When asked for a third-party opinion my claim is ignored. When I continue to bring up the topic they ignore, they defer me to some Wikipedia rules deferring away from discussion.

The reason why I am reaching out as a last resort is that there are discussions on the talk page where everyone agrees it should be changed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_conflict#Status_of_'Syrian_mercenaries'_in_infobox However when the edit it made, it is changed by a biased editor who is listed as a party here. He ignores the international and talk-page consensus and pushes' his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvtch (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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

[[2]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe issuing an opinion whether you believe that BBC, the Guardian, the Syrian Rebel Groups themselves, The US Pentagon, is sufficient to say that they are actually combatants as opposed to just allegedly combatants would help resolve this dispute. Thank you.

I could agree that it should be on infobox, I never removed it. Although it should stay on the "alleged" section not "support" because support actually means something else. If Azerbaijan has denied it, it is still alleged, no matter what. As you can see here, they should be called Syrian National Army per WP:COMMONNAME, not "Syrian militia" or "Syrian mercenaries", even if the group itself denied it. Because SOHR mentions these alleged fighters belong to the subgroups of SNA. Beshogur (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to be a major part of this conflict, but clearly Dvtch is the right one here. I only have one proposal, maybe we could say "members of the Syrian National Army" or something like that instead of the whole SNA as a whole. It would seem strange to me if the entire organization declared allegiance to Azerbaijan. And we already call the Martyr Nubar Ozanyan Brigade as "Syrian-Armenian militia". Super Ψ Dro 14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This debate essentially boils down if the international consensus should be followed or if two users should have the power to stonewall consensus. In this case, Syrian mercenaries have been noted by the BBC^[1] , Syrian Observatory for Human Rights^[2] , the Guardian^[3] , and many more sources to be fighting in Azerbaijan. The users stonewalling deflect and say that we should take Azerbaijan's word seriously. This doesn't make sense in this context. Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia are all combatants. Therefore, I think relying on their medias (most of them state ran) for the opinion as opposed to reputable international journals, the rebel groups themselves, and human rights organizations with extensive connections all across Syria is wrong. It is disengeous to only say they are alleged when virtually everybody in the talk-group, in the international press, in academia outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan agree that they are fighting. It is similar to the case of the War in Donbass article. Virtually every media org, country, agrees Russia is fighting. So they are listed as a combatant, not an alleged combatant, with a note of their denial. These users also deflect and refer to Azerbaijan and Turkey's claims of the Kurdish terror group, the PKK fighting for Armenia. This claim is not repeated seriously in any neutral press. It is only reported in a serious capacity by Turkish and Azerbaijani state media orgs. Therefore to lump this claim and the internationally recognized claim that Syrian groups are fighting for Azerbaijan is beyond disengeous and as many are saying is making Wikipedia look like another front of this war.

I would like to ask the users who stonewall the consensus, what short of Azerbaijan admitting they have Syrian mercenaries would be grounds to take them out of alleged? We have already far passed that threshold.

Thank you for reading this. I appreciate all the work you do and hope this can be dealt with civilly and quickly. Dvtch (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Article should be protected with "Pending Review" in my opinion. Both users Beshogur and Solavirium have a past of POV pushing1 2 3 4 5. Maybe a thrid opinion could help.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I tried to keep it as neutral as possible allowing two people from each POV. I believe the Wiki moderator will be able to see the view points if they glance at the talk-page, what is most important is that both Beshogur and Solavirium respond here. Dvtch (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I made this comment on the article's talk page, so going to make it here as well. Based on the fact 3rd party, neutral and reliable media outlets, plus countries like France and the US, are reporting on Syrian fighter involvement on the side of Azerbaijan I would agree that their involvement is no longer just alleged. Azerbaijan can deny their involvement and we can note this in the infobox, but considering they are one of the belligerents their denial should not be considered more factual (warranting the "alleged" wording) than what the 3rd party sources are reporting. Thus I support Dvtch's opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any violation on original research or NPOV violation. On the contrary, the sources of Armenia or Karabakh and Azerbaijan or Turkey are less than other sources as far as I see and all of the allegations are on the page with separating from the fully verified combatants. Also, the war is still ongoing; even they are coming from the most reliable sources, anything cannot confirmed fully based on reliability and all of the sources doesn't include a material evidence. Ahmetlii (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that I kept it neutral as soon as possible. Ahmetlii (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Notes - I have a few comments at this point. First, this article is currently under Extended-Confirmed Protection, which is stronger than Pending Changes, so I am not sure that Pending Changes protection would be useful. Second, if one or two editors are stonewalling a consensus, a Request for Comments is more likely to be useful than moderated discussion. Third, complaints about bias by an administrator should be taken to WP:AN or Requests for Arbitration, although most complaints about administrator abuse are just complaints, reflecting administrators doing a difficult job. Fourth, one reason for the Extended-Confirmed Protection is sockpuppetry. Fifth, see WP:ARBAA2, which has authorized ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing can be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. I do not plan to moderate this case, but am leaving it to see if another volunteer is willing to try to moderate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer note I would be willing to moderate, but looking at the article it appears that the at-issue content has already been changed to reflect the filing editor's perspective, and it's not clear that any other editors intend to dispute this matter further. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• Ahmetlii, as you seem to be effectively re-opening this dispute with this edit, please refrain from commenting in this section. That having been said, you can add yourself as an editor involved in this dispute, following the format used above for Beshogur, Solavirium etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: Thanks. Just I didn't know where to write. Ahmetlii (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this subject is a recently created article makes trying to determine the stable status quo ante a pointless exercise, so in an effort to put together a temporary compromise, I've moved the SNA icon back to the full belligerent section and added a {{disputed inline }} tag. Please refrain from making any changes to the belligerents section of the infobox until discussion has concluded. Do not reply to editors in this discussion unless I specifically instruct you to. The fact that this is an ongoing and evolving conflict gives this issue a bit of urgency, so I'm going to skip past the usual first step of dispute resolution of having you state your positions and get right to the point. Editors appear to be split over whether to list a Turkish-aligned, pro-Azeri Syrian faction as full belligerents or alleged belligerents, and also over how to refer to said faction. We'll address the issue of whether to list them as alleged first, and will deal with how to refer to them later.

In the relevant section below, please identify 1-2 sources and a brief argument (no more than 3 sentences) for your preferred version of the article. I'm also adding a third section if you have any comments or objections to my statement. Please only use that section to reply to me, do not engage in back and forth discussion with other participants there. Pinging participants Beshogur, Dvtch, Solavirum Super Dromaeosaurus Ahmetlii. If any of you are not interested in participating in this discussion, please say so in the "Other responses" section. If you want to participate in this discussion, but find that another editor that you agree with has already made an effective argument for your position for this round of arguments, please just leave a message indicating your agreement so that we know not to wait for an additional response from you and so that you don't make redundant arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Added note: I've encouraged other editors working on the article to also join in this discussion here if they so desire. In order to accommodate possible additional positions in addition to the current two, I will add a relevant section below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• My statement is per Beshogur. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  Solavirum, just to clarify, by this comment you mean per Beshogur's statement in the "Summary of dispute" section? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

  Rosguill, yes. It is very noteworthy, so it shall stay in the infobox. But as Alleged. Otherwise, it would clearly have an anti-Azerbaijani, and to an extent, anti-Turkish bias. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

RosguillThe Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, which is used as the standard on countless Wikipedia articles and has thousands of connections throughout Syria documents this quite clearly ^[1] and the BBC has conducted an interview with a fighter ^[2] . Turkey's own NATO allies, including France have confirmed the reports.^[3] Lastly they should be listed as just a belligerent just as Russia is the War in Donbass article, even if Russia denies it, the rest of the world agrees and a note is made noting their denial, so this should follow established Wikipedia standard and they just be listed as a full combatant.Dvtch (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• I support the position of Dvtch. F.Alexsandr (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Dvtch position is the most adecuate. We cant deny that most thrid parties consider them a belligrent.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• I support the position of Dvtch based on 3rd party neutral and reliable sources which verify the information. EkoGraf (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• I don't want to participate but my statement is per Dvtch. Super Ψ Dro 09:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Fully support Dvtch's position Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• I agree with Dvtch completely. They should be listed as full combatants. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that, pending information that the SNA or a faction of it organized and sent these men to Azerbaijan, the Syrian National Army should not be listed as a belligerent. From what has so far been coming out, it looks like SNA members were approached by Turkish recruiters and signed on of their own violition, and were taken to Azerbaijan on Turkish planes. The SNA does not seem to have sent them and they do not appear to be operating under any form of SNA command. The simple reason is that although they were members of the SNA, they fought as individuals fighting for the Azerbaijani military. To repeat an example I have already used, this is like going to the page of a battle involving the French Foreign Legion and putting every single country that the Foreign Legion soldiers who fought in said battle came from as belligerents. It's for the same reason I'd support removing Syrian Armenians from the belligerent list as those fighting alongside Armenia and Artsakh, unless specific Syrian-Armenian organizations are involved. It seems like they're just private citizens of Armenian ethnicity originally from Syria who are now fighting with the Armenian Army or Artsakh Defense Army. Now, if it turns out that the SNA or some faction of it has been deliberately sending them to Azerbaijan my opinion would change.--RM (Be my friend) 15:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• While I see a lot of sources picking up on this, I do have something important to point out: There is heavy cross-contamination of sources, i.e sites repeating other sites who may have been fed misinformation, misinterpreted, or flat-out invented said source. Some of these sources like the SOHR are arguably very close to the subject matter and have been established as reliable sources, and while that leaves them in a unique position for first scoops, but it also leaves them vulnerable to being co-opted for propaganda by either side. Here is a very damning example: The SOHR cites "Hawar News" as its source for dead Syrian militiamen fighting for the Azeri side in its article above. Hawar News itself is a Kurdish news outlet that is apparently known for being unreliable and pushing propaganda and rumors, and this could very well be where the BBC is getting its numbers from in reality -- BBC gets the numbers of allegedly dead Syrian militamen from the SOHR which is otherwise known as reliable, but they're actually getting them from Hawar News. But notice something: The two articles are completely identical in content, right down to picture chosen and formatting. The SOHR seems to be simply copy-pasting from the Hawar News article. This is a bit disturbing as the SOHR is usually acknowledged as a reliable source. In the end, all of this could be true, whether we're talking about the SNA guys or the Armenian volunteers, but a lot of the sources used could be based on FUD, like the example I showed. In addition, as Reenem alludes to above, the actual dynamics here could be more complicated than just the group being a belligerent. Until reports are verified and the fog of misinformation lifts somewhat, I would maybe keep them out of the infobox, with the possibility of keeping mentions of them in the article proper. Eik Corell (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted those are not the only sources on the Syrian fighter's presence. France, based on intelligence information, as well as the US DoD, stated the Syrians are involved. Also, the Guardian is citing their participation to interviews it conducted with the Syrian fighters themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Do not respond to other editors outside of the allotted section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There is now enough evidence corroborated by independent (uninvolved in the Armenia-Azerbaijan war) sources that there are Turkish-recruited Syrian mercenaries fighting for Azerbaijan. I believe "Syrian mercenaries" is more appropriate than 'Syrian National Army'. ----Երեւանցի ^talk 15:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the sources provided by the the "full belligerents" camp, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights article claims that Syrian mercenaries affiliated with Turkey are present in the fighting in Syria.^[1] The BBC source appears to be attributing the information to individuals they interviewed in the fighting.^[2] The Al Jazeera article purely reports allegations and counter-allegations from various world leaders.^[3] None of these sources appear to to mention the Syrian National Army directly, instead calling the involved groups Syrian mercenaries or Syrian fighters, and sometimes mentioning affiliated with Turkey or with jihadist affiliations. Could editors from the "full belligerents" camp please indicate whether you continue to believe that this is sufficient for the inclusion of some mention of Syrian fighters in the infobox as full belligerents, and if so what your preferred way of referring to the Syrian faction would be. You may provide one or two additional sources if they include stronger claims than the sources already presented. Please keep your responses to about 3 sentences. Pinging editors F.Alexsandr, Dvtch, Mr.User200, EkoGraf, Գարիկ Ավագյան. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

There's still room for some editors in the "full belligerents" camp to respond to the second statement, but the responses so far are enough for me to pose the next question to both the "alleged" and "removal" camps. At this point, between coverage from SOHR, The Guardian , AFP and BBC, it is verifiable in RS that there are Syrian mercenaries aiding the Azerbaijani forces and that have connections to Turkey. To argue against this would be a very uphill battle, and would more or less require top quality RS articles directly reporting that there are no such mercenaries or otherwise directly disputing the accounts we've seen thus far. Eik Corell's argument against SOHR doesn't account that Hawar also credits SOHR with the reporting, which is more suggestive of collaboration between the sources than it does SOHR uncritically re-reporting another scoop, a relationship that doesn't necessarily imply unreliability. What remains unclear, however, is whether it is due to include mention of the Syrian forces in the infobox, and if so how to refer to them. Beshogur, Solavirum, Ahmetlii, Reenem and Eik Corell please give your positions on whether you think pro-Azerbaijan Syrian factions should be mentioned in the infobox and a brief argument (< 3 sentences) for why. If you either prefer to include a mention, or are willing to accept a compromise that includes a mention, please specify how you think that they should be referred to along with a brief argument. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC) fix ping Eik Corell _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To guide discussion on whether or not Syrian mercenaries should be mentioned as belligerents, there is no consistent precedent as to whether or not mercenaries should generally be mentioned as belligerents. To give some concrete examples, Nagorno-Karabakh War and American Revolutionary War both list mercenaries as belligerents; Congo Crisis and Angolan Civil War do not, despite mercenaries having played a significant role in those conflicts. Effective arguments will consider the extent to which RS describe Syrian mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side as playing a significant role in the conflict as a whole, and the degree to which mercenaries are presented as either autonomous agents or as part of the Azerbaijani military hierarchy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In response to @Rosguill and Rosguill:, the only organization that suits "affiliated with Turkey" or "with jihadist affiliations" description is Syrian National Army. However I will not object to changing "SNA" to "Turkish affiliated Syrian rebels" or something like that. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted those are not the only sources on the Syrian fighter's presence. France, based on intelligence information [3], as well as a US DoD official [4], stated the Syrians are involved. Also, the Guardian is citing their participation to interviews it conducted with the Syrian fighters themselves [5] (there have been several other outlets as well). So yes their presence is most definitely confirmed by 3rd party sources. As for if they are there as officially fighters of the SNA or in their own capacity as mercenaries, I think a compromise solution could be found by rewording them potentially from "Syrian National Army" to just "Syrian mercenaries", "Syrian fighters" or "Turkish-affiliated Syrian rebels" (similar to what F.Alexsandr proposed). EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I must ask you, is there sufficient consensus that Syrian fighters are in Azerbaijan fighting alongside the Azeri Army? If there is not a coneseus regarding that I would like to address that first as there are geolocated videos and pictures I have here ^[4] of Syrians from the groups Sultan Murad, geolocated to the front.^[5] This is in addition to a new interview done by AFP^[6] . If the outstanding issue is regarding the naming of the group, this is a vastly more complex issue which requires extensive knowledge as to what the SNA is and isn't. In short, the SNA is not a functioning organization, but rather a collection of groups that operate solely in Northern Syria in Turkish occupied territories. All groups within it are essentially independent of one another. If we must, we can list the individual groups, but I recommend we follow the common name policy and follow what other article regarding these groups have done, where if more than one of these groups (e.g. if both Sultan Murad and Hamza Division are fighting) they are just collectively refered to as the Syrian National Army. Dvtch (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Dvtch, I think that the statement that I just added should address the concerns raised here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill Alright. In that case, to follow Wikipedia standard (WP:COMMONNAME), they should be referred to as the Syrian National Army. While I concede, this is not the perfect approach, there is a reason it is the standard across all Syrian Wikipedia articles that include Turkish-backed Syrian groups. The Syrian National Army is NOT a coherent organization, but rather a collection of groups that went to fight alongside Turkey and operate solely in Northern Syria and these groups are fairly independent of each other^[7] . Two of such groups have gone to fight in Azerbaijan (as far as we know now): The Sultan Murad Division ^[8] and the Hamza Division ^[9] , however it is likely that in the coming days and weeks, just as in Libya more groups will send fighters over, therefore to prevent the info box from being cluttered, we just collectively refer to all these groups as the Syrian National Army (an organization they are all a part of).Dvtch (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill I see you have made a new paragraph this time regarding the role of mercenaries and whether it is sufficient to include them. As mentioned as in the previous Nagorno Karabakh War, they were included, setting precedent for this one. However, you claim not every wiki article follows this standard, citing the Angolan and Congo Crisis. However, upon further inspection, it appears the PMC company Executive Solutions IS listed as a combatant on the Angolan page. ^[10] (see 5th combatant on the side of the MLPA). In this case of the Congo Crisis, the role of mercenaries was so minor, that they were not listed in the belligerent section. It appears their role rarely exceeded that of special missions and that their casulaties never rose into the hundreds despite over 100,000 people dying in that war. In the case of this war, this is much different. Dozens are already reported killed or wounded with the number already near 100 ^[11] . This is contrast to the current casualty count of this page has a much higher ratio (mercenaries to total combatant casualties) than any of the conflicts listed. Also through OSINT investigation, it has been noted they are fighting alongside the position of the Azerbaijani Army. From the telegram page of Azaz News, a prominent SNA outlet, (I cannot link the telegram page due to issues) of an Armenian ammo post^[12] . and also that same ammo store in a still taken from an Azerbaijan MOD video^[13] . Also by request I can post more videos and pictures of SNA fighters from the front. It is clear that the overwhelming articles on Wikipedia (including the previous iteration of this war itself) lists mercenaries in the belligerent page if their role is significant enough, this is further compounded by the fact it is clear they are taking an infantry role and are active on the front with many casualties in a role I would say greater most of the examples listed. Therefore, to exclude them as a combatant would be to hide one of the important components and key players of this war and give a completely inaccurate impression to any reader viewing this article. Dvtch (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: I think that FSA should not stay at Belligerents section directly rather than alleged section. First, there's not a confirmation from Azerbaijan. Second, why FSA want to fight at there(that was some editors' opinions on PKK/YPG section)? Third, all of the sources above go to same person as a source rather than mentioning a community/army. Fourth, some of the sources that inside the FSA are denying this. Also, I think that PKK/YPG should stay at Alleged section because of there's a lot of sources about it (like FSA), but not enough to confirm or confute because of the sources generally comes from Turkey or Azerbaijan. (Except a few sources, I mentioned them before on the article's talk page.) Ahmetlii (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to ping @Greyshark09:, who has involved about "no mention". Ahmetlii (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Rosguill: I note you stated that there is no consistent precedent on whether to include mercenaries with some articles having them and some not. I'm of the opinion that in all articles on military conflicts we should not include them in the belligerent section but should include them in the strength and units involved sections, listing them alongside other units fighting for said side. Because they are not an independent actor at all, but rather fighting as part of a particular side. RM (Be my friend) 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Rosguill:Hope I'm doing this right by responding here to your second moderator statement. With all the other sources available I guess those sources are not that important in the grand scheme of things. About my position on the matter, I honestly don't know: Listing them as full belligerants is true in the sense that there are large numbers of them that have been brought there, but as mentioned: Does this reflect an actual commitment by the Syrian National Army, or are they just having their members enticed to fight as mercenaries? It feels like intent matters here - If they are committed to doing this and are actively involved in sending their troops there, then they're a full belligerant. If instead they're being used as a source of mercenaries, then either they belong in the "units" section where they're mentioned, or, another possibility: List them in the way that Israel is listed in the infobox on the Quneitra June 2017 offensive article: As an entity listed on one side, but separated off from said belligerants. Obviously in that situation they were not mercenaries, but it feels like it touches on some of the same stuff regarding where an entity belongs in an order of battle if it is separate from the main belligerants but fighting a specific side. There is a lot of content on said article's talk page in relation to this issue and perhaps that could be of some value as well? I'm sorry if this is all very wishy-washy with no real position taken, but I'm kind of stumped by this whole issue. Eik Corell (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In the last round of responses, two of the three editors participating from the no-mentioned/alleged camp suggested that they would be in favor of including mercenaries as part of either the strength and units section or in a marked-off section of the belligerents box, similar to how Israel is presented here. Could F.Alexsandr, EkoGraf and Dvtch please respond below whether they find either of these suggestions acceptable, and if not, give a brief argument to that effect.

In the last round, Dvtch also pointed out that I was mistaken about the details of the infobox Angolan Civil War. It does appear that mercenary groups with significant involvement in a conflict are more often than not are included in the belligerents section in some capacity. That having been said, I think that my general guidance that strong arguments will assess the level of involvement of mercenary groups and their degree of autonomy when making their case.

Regarding Ahmetlii's comments in the second response, the lack of confirmation from Azerbaijan does not preclude us from including mention, given the presence of independent reliable sources reporting on the matter. The second argument about the FSA's motives is original research. While it could be refashioned into an argument that the claim of mercenaries is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the sources that support the claim that there is a mercenary presence give a clear answer to what their motives would be, and thus this is unlikely to be persuasive in the absence of reliable sources disputing the claim directly. It's not clear what you are referring to when you say sources inside FSA contesting the claim; I will make space for you below to provide these sources. Finally, while the question of how to frame PKK/YPG involvement may be influenced by the outcome of this discussion, the actual question of how to address those claims is outside of the scope of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC) add ping Ahmetlii _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

here (it's already in the page), the SNA's spokesman refuses claims. here (it's not enough to confirm - because inaccessible right now), here. However, I believe that the sources are not reliable at a point, even they're generally reliable on Wikipedia. (as WP:RS AGE and WP:RECENT stated that.) I'm thinking that mentioning on the belligerents section will need more source, I don't find any source about that FSA is captured a village or contributed to the war as notable. Because of I stated above, I'm still suggesting to not put to the belligerents section. Ahmetlii (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The point of the separation line between the Syrian rebels and Israel in the belligerents section of the example you provided was to indicate both of those belligerents, while not allied, were fighting against the Syrian military and were also not fighting each other. That is not applicable here where the Syrian rebels/mercenaries are clearly allied with the Azeri forces. As for the example of the Angolan Civil War, it clearly demonstrates mercenaries can be included in the belligerents section (not just unit section) if they are notable enough. And these guys are. What I think the best solution is to put them in the belligerents section of the infobox under either "Syrian National Army (denied by Azerbaijan and Turkey)" or "Syrian mercenaries (denied by Azerbaijan and Turkey)", since a lot of sources are calling them mercenaries and its not entirely clear if they are there in an official capacity as part of the SNA or simply on their own. EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the EkoGraf for the following reason: SNA is not a mercenary organization, its a rebel group with a goverment (unrecognized) of their own. So any use of them as mercenaries implies support or at least passive agreement of the goverment. Also they are organized separately from Azeri army and because of all this, i think they should be used as belligerents, although I do agree that "Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries" could be used insted scince, they fight for money. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill The proposed solutions would be acceptable to me if this was a case of first impression. However, it is not. I have went back and looked through many different wars in addition to the samples you have given me and have not found ANY instance in which a group like Sultan Murad and the Hamaza Division are here, are listed only in the fighters section or sectioned off. As EkoGraf said, the reason why Israel was in the same column but put in a new row, was because they were fighting against the Syrian Arab Army but not fighting for the same interests as the rebel groups in Southern Syria. ^[14] Thus deviating from this format would confuse Wikipedia users and give an inaccurate portrayal of the conflict in the reader's head. As mentioned in my previous responses, they should be referred to the Syrian National Army to avoid cluttering and abide by WP:COMMONNAME, and it is clear they are being used in an infantry role, directly supporting the Azeri Army. If they had their own independent motives, or were fighting for a particular faction within Azerbaijan, I would be open to them being sectioned off, however it seems the Azeri Army and nation's politics are homogenous in their approach to the conflict. For the reasons listed above, it would paint a completely inaccurate proposal that does not follow established Wikipedia practices to only list them in fighters or section them off. Therefore, they should be listed all full belligerents, as the Syrian National Army, and also have their units (e.g. Hamza Division) listed in the fighters section. Dvtch (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion, I think that both sides have laid out their arguments fully and we are unlikely to benefit from additional responses on the core question of whether or not to include mercenaries in the infobox as belligerents. My own opinion, having read and digested these arguments, is that the presence of reliable sources stating that mercenary forces are present coupled with the absence of reliable and independent sources that contradict this claim is a strong enough case for mentioning the presence of mercenaries on the Azerbaijani side in Wikipedia voice. I further find the arguments for inclusion in the infobox as belligerents more compelling at this time than the arguments opposed. Finally, based on the available sources, I think that at this time "Syrian mercenaries" is likely the best way to refer to these groups in the infobox, and to include a footnote indicating Azerbaijan and Turkey's rejection of the claim.

My opinions on this matter are non-binding, although I do believe that I've tried my best to remain neutral in evaluating arguments, and thus believe that if put to an RfC, uninvolved editors would likely support the position that I have laid out. Thus, I'd like to ask editors arguing against full inclusion, Beshogur, Solavirum, Ahmetlii, Eik Corell, Reenem, to indicate whether you wish to accept my suggestion or to dispute this matter further through an RfC. As for the other editors, F.Alexsandr, EkoGraf and Dvtch, please indicate whether you are satisfied with my suggestion of how to refer to the mercenaries. Editors arguing against full inclusion can also include comments indicating that they prefer a different way of referring to the mercenaries, but should not feel that it is required to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• I accept the suggestion, let's include Syrian mercenaries for now, but let's consider a return to this when more concrete information becomes available.--RM (Be my friend) 16:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Reenem. Thanks for the statements. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Though I still like the idea of partitioning them off in the way I described, I don't have that much of a problem with including them as full belligerents, and if/when new information comes up, the issue can always be revisited in one way or another. Eik Corell (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I accept the suggestion too, I think the dispute is resolved for now. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with calling them mercenaries as I think that is contrary to Wikipedia precedent, I will agree as it seems to be the best compromise and this seems to be the prevailing consensus. Dvtch (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Accept. EkoGraf (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (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

• Armond Rizzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Benmite (talk · contribs)
• Celestina007 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I created an article for the gay porn actor Armond Rizzo, but it was quickly nominated for deletion due to what Celestina007 believed was a lack of notability or discussion in reliable sources. They also pointed to the fact the awards received by him were not actually notable because of WP:ENT and WP:GNG, despite the fact that neither of those guidelines state that those awards are not notable. I pointed out multiple sources within the article that I believed could reasonably be considered reliable for the topic at hand, and showed other examples of the subject being notable, such as Rizzo's especially high ranking in Pornhub search statistics for gay porn actors, which was sourced within the article. The user then nominated the page for speedy deletion, claiming that the article was unambiguously promotional, without having mentioned it previously or explaining why that was the case on the talk page or in the deletion nomination talk page. They then put a COI tag on the page, again without warning or explanation, implying that I have a connection with the subject of the page without explaining how they came to that conclusion. I have never so much as met Armond Rizzo, but I figured he deserved a Wikipedia page considering his significant place in the gay porn industry. I did a lot of research on him to write this article, but any information was garnered through interviews and articles. There was a tweet used as a citation that I found after looking him up to confirm his birthplace, but I deleted it as it broke WP:RSSELF. They repeatedly told me to read various guidelines without specifying which criteria caused those guidelines to be broken by the article.

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

Talk:Armond Rizzo#Contested deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armond Rizzo

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether or not the deletion and speedy deletion nominations are reasonable, help determine what needs to be fixed in the article if either are not reasonable.

There isn’t any dispute the article in question has been tagged with a G11 because it is a promotional one. If or not it gets deleted as such is entirely up to the patrolling admin. Although I should state that there’s a COI problem here but it’s apparent. Celestina007 (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2020 (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

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

Users involved

• Pinchme123 (talk · contribs)
• buidhe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

buidhe has removed long-established content from the lede section. After I reinstated, there was a quick back-and-forth of reverts, but because I reverted to the original first, the final revert by buidhe has left the page without longstanding content while this dispute was being discussed.

The content in question is about the labeling of extermination camps as concentration camps by many scholarly sources, and the paragraph in question explains why these types of camps are excluded from the discussion in this article. They feels this should not be explained, feels that the description of the label and its application is wrong, and has therefore removed the paragraph.

In the discussion on the talk page, buidhe linked to five ostensible sources to support their opinion, mostly without quotations; one is in German, two are inaccessible books. Of the two accessible ones, one (a peer-reviewed journal article) argues the opposite of buidhe's claim. The other (a U.S.Holocaust Memorial Museum-maintained page) supports their claim about the incorrect description, but supports my claim that many scholars nonetheless use the label anyway.

I have provided two additional sources. One (another USHMM page) indirectly supports the point that extermination camps are considered a concentration camp subtype. The other is from Encyclopedia Britannica and written by a prominent Holocaust Scholar and college professor, that explicitly states, extermination camps are a type of concentration camp.

buidhe has repeatedly misquoted/summarized the EB source, reversing what it states, to claim the source says the opposite. They have also refused to reinstate the longstanding content in dispute while it is being discussed, instead claiming it is "[my] preferred version" multiple times.

I have suggested alterations. They have suggested alternative language for the paragraph, which does not explain why extermination camps are excluded from this page, which is a crucial part of the paragraph.

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

Talk:Internment#Extermination_vs_internment

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

We need a mediator to evaluate the sources and decide whether or not the longstanding content should be retained and altered, or remain deleted.

Although it is the longstanding version, the content in dispute fails WP:V; the sources that Pinchme cited do not support the content in its entirety. (We have some disagreement over how certain sources should be interpreted—but apart from that, part of the content is definitely not supported by any source). In my opinion, "extermination camps are a subset of concentration camps" is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which needs strong and explicit sourcing that would override the fact that scholarly encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Der Ort des Terrors classify extermination camps separately. (Sources: [6] [7])

I proposed an alternative version that is fully supported by reliable sources. It would help readers understand various controversies over the labeling of certain facilities as "concentration camps". In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Scope_of_article, it explains why extermination camps are not covered in the article: scholars do not classify them as a subset of concentration camps. Finally, I wonder, if Pinchme is correct, why aren't extermination camps covered in this article?

PS: It would also be nice if Pinchme would not accuse me of being "dishonest" (see WP:NPA) or "moving the goalposts" when I mention additional reasons why their theory is not correct.

I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please read and follow the rules. I will restate a few rules. Be civil and concise. Some editors think that means be civil. It does, but it also means that if you are asked for a one-paragraph summary, a short summary is less likely to be misunderstood than a rant. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective is to improve the article. All other issues are secondary. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress.

I am providing a section for back-and-forth discussion so that statements in response to my request for statements will just be statements, without back-and-forth discussion. I will probably ignore any back-and-forth discussion unless it is uncivil. Write your answers to my questions to me and to the community, not to each other.

It is my understanding that the issue has to do with types of camps, such as internment camps, concentration camps, et cetera. If there are any other issues, please identify them. Each editor should state, in one paragraph, what they wish to change (or leave the same) in the article. Keep it to one paragraph, because we can expand on reasons in a little while if necessary.

Buidhe

I propose that the third paragraph of the lead be replaced by:

The term "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is used to refer to a variety of systems that greatly differed in their severity, mortality rate, and architecture; their defining characteristic was that inmates were held outside the rule of law.^[1] Extermination camps or death camps, whose primary purpose was killing, are also imprecisely referred to as "concentration camps".^[2]

Unlike any of the versions that Pinchme has supported, it is a) factually accurate and b) verifiable to reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinchme123

I propose we work from the existing, factually-correct paragraph, given the paragraph's purpose in the article: to overtly explain why a particular kind of concentration camp is not covered by this article. All it needs is to have proper sources inserted, which I have done.

Given the extraordinary commonality of the label "concentration camp" being applied to the extreme sub-type of "extermination camps," I think there is value in retaining this explanation in this article for why "extermination camps" are discussed separately.

I would also appreciate having my handle properly and appropriately written as "Pinchme123".

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I am not settled on which parts should be bolded or emphasized, and would welcome discussions about this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We have two proposals, both of which are factual. Will the editors each please state why they disagree with the other version? Also, will the editors each state, first, whether they will accept the other version, and, second, whether they are willing to offer what they think of as a compromise (if so, provide it). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot support the other user's version because it is inconsistent with core content policies.

1. It is not true that extermination camps are a subset of concentration camps. As Stone writes on page 4, "No one was ‘concentrated’ in the Nazi death camps of Chełmno (which was actually not really a ‘camp’ in any meaningful sense), Sobibór, Bełżec, or Treblinka, where Jews (and a small number of Roma and Sinti) were sent to die." A book published by Oxford University Press has a higher weight than a non-specialist source like Encyclopedia Brittanica.
2. The canonical usage of extermination camp refers to Auschwitz, Majdanek, Sobibór, Bełżec, Treblinka, Chełmno, and sometimes other places (especially Jasenovac). Only two (or three) of these were also concentration camps. If some extermination camps are not concentration camps, it is logically impossible that extermination camps are a subset of concentration camps.
3. The sources the other user cites do not support the content:
   1. Madley says that "Though referred to as a Konzentrationslager in Reichstag debates, it [Shark Island] functioned as an extermination center". It does not say that "[the camps] created by German forces during the Herero and Namaqua genocide" (in general) were extermination camps. Also, is this just his opinion or is it widely supported?
   2. The statement that "Italian forces during the Italian colonization of Libya" created extermination camps is not verified by the cited source.
   3. The USHMM source does not say that "Nazi concentration camps" in general were extermination camps—they weren't. USHMM encyclopedia as stated above separates the two.
   4. I cannot verify what it supposedly says in Appelbaum's book—quote would be helpful. However, it is not correct that Gulags were extermination camps either. Mortality rate was much lower, as we now know thanks to Soviet archives.^[1] "Mortality in Soviet gulag camps and labor colonies was 24.9% in 1942, 5.95% in 1945, and 0.95% in 1950." One of the primary purposes of Gulag was to support industrialization, not to kill prisoners.^[2] (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is not too long (around 300 words, before proposed compromise paragraph). I would state, first, Buidhe's first sentence would be an excellent addition to the first paragraph of the article's leading section. Their second sentence, if incorporated, could improve upon the already-existing paragraph we're discussing here. But, as a replacement for the paragraph entirely, I respectfully object. This article's introduction has four paragraphs; here is how I see each of their purposes: the first explains the term "internment" in a succinct definition and then a couple sentences expanding upon that definition; the second introduces the synonymous terminology "concentration camp" and briefly introduces its early uses; the third paragraph – under discussion here for retention, deletion, or replacement – explains that this article concerns itself with the broader sense of concentration camps and that specific discussion of the extreme form, "extermination camps" or "death camps," is handled elsewhere; the fourth is a single sentence to note, internment/concentration camps are disallowed in a particular kind of international law.

If replacing the third paragraph, I would hope the paragraph's purpose would be retained. This would mean overtly explaining why, though a reader may know of specific camps, which are referred to widely as concentration camps but which are of the extreme "death camps" kind, such camps have their own dedicated page. This is important in the text of the article and not as merely a part of the hatnote because of how widespread this application of "concentration camps" is. Thus, I do not see Buidhe's suggested paragraph as sufficient enough at conveying htis to supplant the existing paragraph. But, like I said, both sentences would be excellent additions in their own right to the introductions, should the paragraph as written be retained.

My proposed alteration, incorporating parts of the second sentence of Buidhe's paragraph:

--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Since it has been more than a day, I will leave here an important quote from Stone (2015), p. 4: "A concentration camp is not normally a death camp, although death camps in the context of the Holocaust obviously derived from concentration camps and the killing of asylum patients (the so-called 'Euthanasia programme') in terms of their institutional history."

This is the sentence that precedes one which turns on the literal definition of "concentrate", as reported by Buidhe, to somehow claim extermination camps are not concentration camps. Neither of these sentences make this claim; instead, what they claim is that not all concentration camps are extermination camps (the directionalality of the argument is important). But it is incredibly difficult to see how one can read that concentration camps are "not normally" extermination camps – the obvious implication being that sometimes they are – and that extermination camps "obviously derived from concentration camps," and not acknowledge their inextricable connection. It's no wonder the Library of Congress specifically categorizes them as such, as seen in Peachy (2009) (I somehow missed adding that publication year and I will add it at the next step of this mediation).

I'll continue waiting to hear back from the mediator. But, upon finding this important context to the pull-quote used against the longstanding article text, I thought this was important to highlight.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, there is a connection between Nazi concentration camps, euthanasia centers, and extermination camps: all were staffed by SS-Totenkopfverbande. However, none of these categories are subsets of each other and Stone explicitly contradicts that. (t · c) buidhe 09:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• For instance, see the noted German historian Dieter Pohl: under the heading "Mass murder outside the concentration camp system" (emph. added) he states

  The major sites of mass murder in 1942 were the killing fields in the occupied territories of Eastern Poland and the Soviet Union and the extermination camps of ‘Action Reinhardt’, Belžec, Sobibór, and Treblinka, which had been established by the regional SS and Police Leader in Lublin, Odilo Globocnik. A further extermination camp existed in Kulmhof (Chełmno) in the Warthegau (part of occupied Poland incorporated into the German Reich), where gas vans were used to murder Jews.

  — "The Holocaust and the concentration camps", Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany pp. 152–153

And yet, none of this quote characterizes any of these concentration camps as being outside the concentration camp system. I am not familiar with the book, but it is entirely possible this text sets up a discussion of killings outside of camps entirely, by first describing these in-system contexts. Given the missing context from the previous quote you shared from Stone (2015), and that you haven't linked to the source, I'll assume this is another possible innocent mistake and await our mediator for the next round of statements. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the editors are working out possible compromise wordings for the article by interacting with each other. So I will allow this discussion to continue. Be civil and concise. Discuss the article and how to improve it. I will intervene if I think that discussion is not working.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I reiterate my previous suggestion, given it has already been found by the moderator to be factual. I have updated the data of one source, since its publication date was missing, and restructured the first sentence to remove any doubt as to which parts of the sentence are factually supported by which source. The rest remains as it was in Round 2.

I see no reason to deviate further from this version, given it incorporates Buidhe's suggestion, aside from deciding which parts might be bolded or put in italics.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

As stated above, most parts of this version fail verification, or are not accurate according to high-quality scholarly sources. This is not a compromise proposal since it is almost identical to the one proposed earlier, without addressing the issues I raised above. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 10 October 2020 (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

• French Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 021120x (talk · contribs)
• Robinvp11 (talk · contribs)
• Truth Is King 24 (talk · contribs)
• Gwillhickers (talk · contribs)
• TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs)
• Canute (talk · contribs)
• XavierGreen (talk · contribs)
• Acebulf (talk · contribs)
• MJL (talk · contribs)
• Rjensen (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Originally, a discussion was raised regarding two statements included in the introductory paragraph which follows the page summary - however, the discussion morphed into a contestation over whether or not the French Revolution was initially (A) not inspired by the American Revolution (B) not directly inspired but only "influenced" - and, if so, to what degree or (C) directly inspired by the American Revolution - and, again, to what degree and in what ways. At the behest and direction of administrator Tenryuu User:Tenryuu, the dispute is being transferred to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. In addition to discussing the lede, it was proposed that a section be added to the document detailing the influence and impact of the American Revolution on the French Revolution. Such information has been removed from the article without warrant, along with other primary sources. Many of these were never under discussion to begin with.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:French_Revolution#American_Influence_on_the_French_Revolution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_Behaviour,_Source_Deletion,_and_Article_Neutrality

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The DRN can help resolve the dispute by encouraging honest, objective acknowledgement of all sources and reference material, as opposed to "moving the goal post" when information is shared that one does not like, prefer, or initially agree with. The DRN can also encourage editors to refrain from making massive edits which do not directly follow the discussion, and to leave vitriol, ad hominem, and condescension out of the discussion.

The current wording of the paragraph under discussion is that supplied by MJL, which has been approved by two other parties. So what's the dispute about? Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I had only a very limited role in the dispute, just mentioning that the book Citizens by Simon Schama may have supported the position that the French Revolution started in America. Sadly, I neglected to retrieve the book from my local library before the hold expired. Another editor noted that Schama cites the debt incurred in helping the Americans, but I think there is something in there about an ideological influence, too. Truth is King ^TALK 14:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Schama reference was supplied by me :) He talks about a community of ideas in which Europeans and Americans influenced each other and is reflected in the revised Lead. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus is forming that the RfC was done improperly, (both from here, and an editor on ANI) and/or did not result in a consensus. My apologies for taking the consensus as being a bit more clear than it is. I think we can proceed here with some argumentation, that, while in a bit less formal consensus-building setting than the RfC structure, might provide something for resolving the issue. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement: My problem with the edits made by 021120x are stated on a 5000-character post on their talk page, as well as the article talk page.

The events are summarized as such:

• In May of this year, 021120x found themselves in a precarious situation having added a paragraph that called out this specific statement 021120x as being incorrect. [8]

• 021120x re-added his controversial statements in June [9] using the edit summary "reverting vandalism".

• There was a statement which stated that the French revolution was inspired by the American revolution. This statement violated WP:FRINGE by presenting a statement that is not a generally accepted viewpoint, giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint.

• This statement was also improperly sourced, using deprecated source "History.com" as well as an additional source which was a single-sentence statement from a speech made by an historian who focuses on the American Revolution.

• On September 6, I moved this statement to the "causes" section, and made it more nuanced. [10]

• Following this, I made a post on the talk page in order to discuss the cited paragraph.

• On 7 September, User 021120x reverted these changes [11]

• User 021120x did not comment on the page right away, but was nevertheless aware of the discussion as he posted on another talk page [12]

• As the BritClique is now in the process of censoring the influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution, it would seem appropriate to inform editors of this page that a discussion is currently going on here. Please contribute. 021120x (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• On 5 October, 021120x made their first post to the discussion.

• This culminated in a point-by-point rebuttal of the arguments advanced by 021120x, and included further points which had been raised which 021120x had not addressed.

• Instead of responding, 021120x made an ANI post claiming impropriety on the rebuttal to his argument. This claim of impropriety, as well as many others which he later advanced, was deemed unfounded by the responding administrator, and 021120x was told to try this avenue instead.

The currently used paragraph seems adequate, but 021120x continues to be the sole objector to it. I'm not sure what else can be done here. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've never really participated in a DRN before, so apologies in advance.
I was on WP:Discord and started chatting with Acebulf about the dispute ongoing on Talk:French Revolution. I explained that, in America, we are taught from an early age that the French Revolution was a direct effect from the American Revolution. Regardless if that is true or not, some mention of the American Revolution felt warranted to me in the lead of the article. I then did some research and came up with some neutral claims about what relation the two events had with each other and posted on the talk page. These claims backed by scholarly and peer-reviewed sources.
From my perspective, it seems that 021120x is looking to use primary sources to support a WP:UNDUE position which is not backed by WP:SECONDARY articles. To be honest, even my moderate-level claims were a bit radical because a MOS:LEAD is only supposed to summarise content in the article. Given the French Revolution has a child article which completely contradicts 021120x's assertions, edits should've been happening there first before the lead is re-written.
Also, I wouldn't call it an RFC as much as a formal discussion given that it wasn't properly formatted to remain listed as one. –MJL ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

One thing I'll just briefly note, is that currently in that article, in the second paragraph there is a statement about American influence, but the citation seems very incomplete, just "Jourdan 2007, pp. 185-187." Am I missing something here? What book is this? I've looked through the "history" a little, and so far have been unable to determine when this citation was added. I am somewhat new here, but unless I have this way wrong, we need a book title, too. There could be more than one author named "Jourdan" and each one of them could have written more than one book.

I'll make one other observation, and that is that Robinvp11 in the article talk page calls the belief in American influence a "minority viewpoint" but does not appear to explain why he believes this. It's not a main page assertion, so he is under no obligation to provide reliable sources. But in the interests of a fair exchange of viewpoints I feel that he should provide some explanation for why he thinks that. It seems to me that this belief is influencing his editing.Truth is King ^TALK 14:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have added the full reference in the article. It seems to have been included as a short footnote pointing the reader to a more fleshed out citation, but the fleshed out citation isn't there. I'm also a bit unfamiliar with that sort of referencing, so if anyone knows of a better way to do it, please feel free to do so. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no dispute about 'influence'; the current wording reflects that. The issue is whether the American Revolution caused the French, and I've explained why that matters in some detail on the TP. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to Moderate this discussion- however, I'm trying to read through everything that has happened so far, and what has been said. Please do not edit the article while this discussion is going on and please hold further discussion at the moment. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, my apologies, I have added some clarification above before seeing your post. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:12, 12 October 2020 (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

• Time dilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Coldcreation (talk · contribs)
• DVdm (talk · contribs)
• Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It is long-time consensus that "Time contraction" is a notable topic. Being a redirect, it should be mentioned in page "Time dilation". When I added material from a reliable source, one from "American Journal of Physics", it was rejected because the author is J. H. Field and he is regarded as a heretic that has questioned Einstein's work and conventional positions about relativity. Thus, all of Field's work is rejected, even journal publications that have nothing to do with the questioning.

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

Talk:Time dilation#Time contraction

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Even if I prove that Field's work related to this topic has been published in journals more than once and that he is not the only author, I feel that other editors will not let the material remain because of Field's ideas. Thus, if this content cannot exist in page "Time dilation", perhaps it can exist peacefully somewhere else in Wikipedia.

No trace anywhere of any "long-time consensus that "Time contraction" is a notable topic". On the contrary, there is hardly anything to be found on the topic. Google Books lists mostly off-topic, used in a completely different non-relativity context, misunderstandings by amateurs, other downright wp:FRINGE, and definitely wp:UNDUE. - DVdm (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - I think that I will try to comment on a technical difference between two policies. The first is the policy against original research, and the second is the guideline on fringe research. Original research is research done by the Wikipedia editor who is both the author of the research and the author of the article. Original research is not permitted at all, and that policy is clear. Fringe research is research done by other persons than the editor/author, who may be academics or amateurs. Wikipedia sometimes describes fringe research as fringe research, cautiously. The ArbCom decision on pseudo-science defined different categories of fringe research. Sometimes the concepts of original research and of fringe research overlap, and sometimes they are distinct. It appears that this dispute is about fringe research by Field, in which case the question is how much if any attention it should be given. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. The primary issue is that J. H. Field is fringe researcher, who has published many "special relativity is wrong" articles on arXiv. His works should therefore not be used as a source. The WP:OR issue is secondary, in that both DVdm and I noted what appear to be WP:SYNTH elements in the IP editor's proposed "compromise" that he presented in our talk page discussion. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks, Robert. Indeed, if Field's fringe work would get some relevant attention in the (also) relevant literature, it could deserve some place in an article about relativity fringe related topics. But I think we might have to wait quite some years for that to happen. And as it is now, unlike articles such as Climate change denial (and, almost, Covid-19 denial), we don't seem to have articles such as Relativity denial or Relativity fringe, or even Relativity nonsense. - DVdm (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The problem may be fringe research by Field which is published only in arXiv, but the first question should be whether that fringe research is relevant at all. 84.120.7.178 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The review process is not perfect, and bad papers occasionally get published in reputable journals. That is one reason why Wikipedia includes recommendations that primary reliance be placed on secondary sources so that primary source material can be put into proper context. There are no secondary source references to "time contraction" which would establish the notability or validity that subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2020 (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

• University of Pittsburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Drevolt (talk · contribs)
• Robminchin (talk · contribs)
• GreaterPonce665 (talk · contribs)
• ElKevbo (talk · contribs)
• Hobit (talk · contribs)
• Qwirkle (talk · contribs)
• Chris troutman (talk · contribs)
• Crazypaco (talk · contribs)
• Vici Vidi (talk · contribs)
• Jonathan A Jones (talk · contribs)
• Juicycat (talk · contribs)
• JohnDorian48 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been an ongoing dispute for a long time now about whether to use the term "public", the term "state-related", or some compromise option (e.g. "public" with an explanatory footnote about state-related status) in the leads of articles about universities in the Commonwealth System of Higher Education (those universities being the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, and Lincoln University). This topic has been the subject of two RfCs, one on the University of Pittsburgh talk page and then one on the WikiProject Higher Education page. Both RfCs had two opposed and firmly entrenched camps, and found no consensus as a result. While some of the editors involved in the second RfC seemed to be interested in finding a compromise option as it wore on, many of the other editors who participated in that RfC did not reply to comments requesting their participation in discussion of compromise options, which made it very difficult to reach a consensus that all parties would be relatively happy with, leading once again to no consensus. Therefore, it seems like having an outside party take a look at help us to settle on a compromise option would be for the best, since at this point it's looking like any future RfCs would just deadlock in the same way that the first two did.

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

• Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_education#Request_for_Comment_about_using_the_word_"public"_to_describe_universities_in_the_CSHE

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It seems like it would be for the best to have an outside party propose a compromise option for us (or at least steer us towards an appropriate compromise option), since there's still no clear consensus after two very long RfCs, since discussion to find a compromise option hasn't been particularly productive, and since it's looking like any future RfCs will deadlock in the same way that the first two did.

This is unnecessary. The RfC was closed as "no consensus" so we default to the wording that was previously used. It's not the wording that should be used but we operate on consensus and collaboration so that happens sometimes. ElKevbo (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2020 (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

• Mincivan, Zangilan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Drabdullayev17 (talk · contribs)
• AntonSamuel (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This town was captured by Azerbaijani army. Town is a part of Azerbaijan. I remove de-facto status from article because it is de-facto and de-jure part of Azerbaijan. But other user still add this information. User also add Armenian name of town to article.

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

User_talk:Drabdullayev17#October_2020

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want your help for determine NPOV for this infomation (armenian name and de-facto status). If it is captured by Azerbaijan and it is de-jure part of Azerbaijan how this can be de-facto part of Artsakh?

I've explained my reverts of the Drabdullayev17's edits on his talk page: [13] as well as here: [14], and have given him warnings for disruptive editing per standard procedure. In short: I found his removal of content related to Armenians/Armenia such as the Armenian name for localities problematic with regard to WP:NPOV. By the way, @Drabdullayev17: when you open a dispute discussion against a user, it's customary to let the user know that you've done so on his talk page. AntonSamuel (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2020 (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

• Aboriginal land title in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Diannaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe the user Diannaa is not applying Wikipedia copyright policies properly and I would like to ask help from an admin. Dianna claims that this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aboriginal_land_title_in_Canada/Temp, is infringing on this https://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Arguments/2009/DOC_24040_12-21_TeckMetals_Brief-Authorities.pdf

The above PDF is a 500 pages compilation of Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The article is 800 words long... Diannaa claims the 800 words article is infringing on the 500 pages compilation of decisions because this report is telling her there is a 50% overlap https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Aboriginal+land+title+in+Canada%2FTemp&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bcuc.com%2FDocuments%2FArguments%2F2009%2FDOC_24040_12-21_TeckMetals_Brief-Authorities.pdf

I believe Diannaa is misunderstanding copyright and most importantly wikipedia copyright policies.

First, it is normal that an 800 words article explicitly discussing Supreme Court decisions has vocabulary overlaps with these decisions quoted and cited in the article.

Second, using the above mentioned website, Dianna is comparing the article with a 500 pages compilation of decisions. This is giving her distorted results. If we must use this tool, we should be comparing the article with the dozen decisions mentioned in the initial article, not just the compilation.

Third, neither Wikipedia nor the Berne Convention recognize protection in the unsubstantial parts of a work. The unsubstantial part of a word (such as a quote) is part of the public domain.

Finally, this article discusses a complex legal concept in indigenous law. To fully understand it, it is normal and expected to fully discuss the interpretation of the supreme court. As such, it is in everyone's interest that I do not invent new words to satisfy the online copyright tool used. This does not mean that copyright infringement should be allowed. But we should use the online tool with prudence.

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

Extended discussion with admin

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Could you please ask another admin to review this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aboriginal_land_title_in_Canada/Temp

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be an appeal of administrative action on a claim of copyright violation. I don't think that DRN is the correct forum for such discussion. I will inquire as to what the correct forum is, other than the talk page of the administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (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

• Congregation Kesher Israel (Philadelphia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ? (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article cited above, there is a paragraph about my tenure at the Synagogue as a rabbi. The span of time is incorrect and the reason why I left the congregation is incorrectly stated: "Rabbi Seth Frisch became the synagogue's spiritual leader in 2015[18] and served in the role through 2018 when the congregation chose not to renew his contract for undisclosed reasons. 1) First, I was there from 2014 to 2018 and 2) the reason I left was not as stated in the Wiki article. It was actually stated publicly as a difference in our respective visions. This wiki article makes it sound (i.e.when it cites "undisclosed reasons") as if something is being hidden and perhaps intimating something that simply isn't there nor is true. I am asking that any reference to me to be stricken -- but specifically this: "Rabbi Seth Frisch became the synagogue's spiritual leader in 2015[18] and served in the role through 2018 when the congregation chose not to renew his contract for undisclosed reasons." The reasons were in fact publicly disclosed and the reasons were mutually agreed upon by both parties. I would prefer that my name and time there be stricken from this wiki page. But if that cannot be done, please cite the mutually agreed upon reason that my departure was due to our difference in vision, due to the arrival of young people which made the older generation uncomfortable. All thought it best to shake hands and go their separate ways.

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

I do not know how to do this . . .

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please either correct the record or strike any reference to me -- that would be helpful, thanks, Seth

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

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

Users involved

• Seloloving (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A currently-banned user had added this text to the lead of the Singapore article: "It has been ranked by the World Economic Forum as the world's most competitive economy; the highest economic freedom, and the easiest place to do business for the past decade", with several other statements. The entire edit was subsequently reverted by Chipmunkdavis under the edit summary "Rv repeated addition of WP:PEACOCKy and fatuous text to the lead. Neutrality is the key issue. Also restoring inappropriately removed cn tag".

I stepped in to try to mediate the dispute, and subsequently realised that the original user had been banned. As such, it's now purely a dispute between me and Chipmunkdavis. I proposed the following statement to replace the line above, using Australia's page as a template: "Singapore is a high income economy and ranks among the highest in international indexes of economic freedom and ease of doing business".

I feel this sentence has merit as the only other reference to the present state of the Singaporean economy is of it being a highly developed country after it became an Asian Tiger, which ended in the 1990s.

According to the World Bank high-income economy's Wikipedia page, the development state of a country is not related to whether its classified as a high or low-income economy, as the two are separate matters.

The stating of a country's international indices is common across many articles, and while I concede "ease of doing business" may be superfluous, the theory of economic freedom is widely accepted, and that more indices which provide information on Singapore's rankings in human rights and press freedom cases can be added to balance out the sentence.

Chipmunkdavis disagrees on all counts. I will prefer to let them share their thoughts directly. Horse Eye's Back had also reverted the original contributor, so they have been tagged here.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Singapore#Please_stop_this_edit_war.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I request for a second opinion

a) if adding the fact that Singapore is a high-income nation consists of mere trivia. b) if the addition of specific indices (in this case, the Index of Economic Freedom) is superfluous.

This dispute revolves around what to include in the lead. In summary, my contention is that of that the material in question is undue for the lead and topically overlaps with existing information. The first part, "high income economy", is a binary classification made by the World Bank which simply states if a country's average income reaches a certain threshold. It is not that widely known an indicator, and by itself says little, especially when the lead already includes the more common and better understood GDP per capita ranking and the note of developed country classification (widely known and also generally includes income as a factor). On "ranks among the highest in international indexes of economic freedom and ease of doing business", my understanding is this is based on only one index per category, and so in addition to the plural being misleading it is effectively seeking to include single indexes from private organisations in a country article lead. The lead already notes the country has high external trade, and that it is a financial and shipping hub, which touch on the theme of business and the economy while having a wider source base than just repeating a single index. CMD (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is this on a noticeboard? Last time I checked the talk page we basically had a consensus. I also don’t think A and B are the questions we were discussing on the page either... A is more or less ok although the word trivia was only used by CMD a single time and that was after my last interaction with the page yesterday, "trivia" is certainly not my objection. B also doesn't appear to be an appropriate summary of the question, we were discussing both superlatives in general *and* the Index of Economic Freedom in specific... Those were different discussions though, why are they combined into one confusing question that we’ve never even tried to discuss on the talk page? TLDR this is misuse of the DRN on Seloloving’s part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2020 (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

• French Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
• Mathglot (talk · contribs)
• Acebulf (talk · contribs)
• Gwillhickers (talk · contribs)
• Robinvp11 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a continuing dispute, primarily about the lede of the article, especially about whether American influence should be mentioned in the lede.

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

Talk:French_Revolution#Lead_paragraph_on_American_influences

Talk:French_Revolution#Call_for_dispute_resolution

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Uncivil_Behaviour,_Source_Deletion,_and_Article_Neutrality_(French_Revolution)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Formulating the RFC or RFCs concerning the lede

I am opening this dispute resolution thread at my own initiative, without being asked to do so by any of the actual participants in the French Revolution dispute. The purpose of this effort will be to formulate at least one RFC, on whether to mention American influence in the lede, and possibly on any other issues about either the lede or the body of the article. It appears that some editors think that American influence should be mentioned in the lede, and some think that it should not be mentioned in the lede. Whether to include a mention of American influence will be the subject of the first RFC. I am asking the proponents of a sentence about American influence to agree on what that sentence should be proposed as. Then the RFC will be put to the community for Yes-No.

I will formulate the rules as I go, but they will include:

• Be civil. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Incivility will be hatted. Uncivil editors know in advance where the door is.
• Be concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not provide much information to anyone else.
• Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress, unless there is interim consensus for the edit. Editors who edit the article know where the door is.
• Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Comments about editors that are not related to content may be hatted.
• If you go to the door, there may an administrator with a partial block on the other side of the door. There may instead be an Oryctolagus cuniculus on the other side of the door, but they are fast, and are only a distraction.
• Do not reply to each other in the section called First Statements by Editors. That is only at this time for proposed wording for the sentence on American influence in the lede.

Now, the proponents are asked what sentence should be included in the lede. It might or might not be included, depending on whether the community agrees to its inclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the question is whether to leave the current second paragraph of the article in place as part of a multi-paragraph lede. If anyone wants something else, they can discuss that. I will allow three days of discussion of what will be in the first RFC. Then I will publish the RFC, and it will run for 30 days, and we will also then work on formulating any further RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include — As various noted American's from the American Revolutionary War were publicly involved in France during the several years leading up to the French Revolution (e.g.Jefferson and Lafayette writing the French Declaration, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, et al) this idea should be reflected in the lede with at least one statement. As there are a fair number of widely noted French historians who cover the American involvement, this is not exclusively an American view. The lede statement in question is currently sourced by a modern day French scholar. The idea and issue of an American involvement is covered by many sources and as such has more than enough weight to be mentioned in the lede. I am happy with the existing statement in the lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe this is my first DRN, so I'm uncertain about procedural and organizational issues. (The structure of this one looks a bit different than others on this page, so I'm even more uncertain; I've started by copying the section title wording and style from another discussion above, and I hope that was what you were looking for, here.) My (limited) understanding is that this section is solely about defining what we view as the locus of the dispute, rather than advocating for our side of it, is that correct?

If so, then I think some context is called for: at Talk:French Revolution, the locus of dispute is loose, poorly defined, but centers around what, if any connection there is between Americans or all things American, and anything having to do with the French Revolution. This manifests in various ways in the article, and numerous ways at the Talk page. On the talk page, there is a loose grab-bag of disputes bouncing all around the general topic of the level of "involvement", "influence", "causation" (and various other copulas of stricter or looser connection) of Americans, American documents, American ideas, American events, including war, on the French documents, French personalities, French ideas, or the French Revolution. These discussions have ebbed and flowed, merged and diverged, gone around in circles, sputtered out or reignited in different incarnations, with little resolution, imho due to various factors, one of which is lack of organization or formality among them, and no incentive to stay on topic for which the DRN could, indeed, provide a remedy (hence my interest in participating).

The statement by Robert McClennon about including or excluding the 2nd paragraph of the lede, is at least succinct and clear and just as good a starting point from which to attempt to corral the pulsating blob as anything else, and I'm happy to start there. So I guess a tl;dr for this is: R McC's statement or summary of the dispute, although shorn of some context or background from the TP, is probably all the better for it, as it may help us avoid extraneous distraction, and keep focused on just that one thing (at last for now): keep that paragraph, or exclude it from the lead.

I'm somewhat uneasy about couching it as a binary about "a paragraph" which seems like an indirection, as opposed to the ideas it expresses. Then again, your formulation has that "succinct and binary" advantage. With that in mind, if there is general agreement that an Rfc statement worded as proposed (i.e., roughly: "Lead para #2: in or out"), then I can accept that as the Rfc question to be opened for comment.

If this opener was not what you are looking for, I'm happy to read any "DRN 101" that you'd care to send my way (on my User TP, if you wish; it might save excess verbiage here). I also waive TPO if you wish to refactor this by retitling this section, resetting the header level, or moving it to a more appropriate location to make it fit the DRN discussion structure you had in mind for this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I am planning, unless I change the plan, to publish an RFC in less than a week. The RFC will be whether to retain the second paragraph of the lede or to omit it. The second paragraph reads:

The intellectual origins of the Revolution came from a global network of European and American 'patriots', who shared ideas and political principles, contacts accelerated by the American Revolution. Together, they marked the beginning of the Age of Revolution, which continued into the mid-19th century and impacted much of Europe and the Americas. However, the French quickly discarded the American Revolution as a reference point, and they are generally viewed as distinct events, with different causes.

This discussion is not an RFC, and will not result in a binding decision. A binding decision is made only by RFC, and the RFC or RFCs will be on the article talk page. Is that clear?

Now, are there any other content issues that the editors want decided by RFC? If so, please reply in the Second Statements, and be brief, and we will then decide whether another RFC is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment by non-involved editor: It might help to bear in mind the purpose of lede sections - essentially, an introduction to the article and summary of its most important content. It follows that one important question is how important this material is. (Commenting because I recently added my name to the roster of volunteers and am cautiously trying to help out).Achar Sva (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment as an involved editor. This goes to the heart of the issue. Essentially, does this have enough historical support to be included as the second paragraph in the lede? I don't believe it is, as it is not even mentioned anywhere in the rest of the article. Does the view have some merit? Yes, but that should be addressed in the causes section and not in the main of the article. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If significant facts are going to be mentioned in the body of the text they should be summarized in the lede with a neutral statement in the lede first, which is cited by a noted French scholar. Please keep abreast of the latest developments on the French Revolution Talk page, not to mention all the other scholarly sources that have been presented there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have published the RFC on the second paragraph of the lede. Are there any other issues that any editor wants to address, either in order to reach a compromise or to publish another RFC? If there are no other issues identified within 48 hours, I will close this DRN. The RFC will run for 30 days (regardless of how long this DRN runs). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: (By count, this is actually only my 2nd.) I can't make out head nor tail of what's going on at Talk:FR. What I see near the bottom of the page, is an Rfc header and a one-line Rfc question (bravo for that!) with your sig on it, at 02:03, 28 October. Following that, I see the copy of the 2nd paragraph, and some ground rules, ending with a parenthetical sentence, which I presume is the end of your contribution to the Rfc setup (no sig on that part, but I recognize your voice). I don't see a section for surveying opinions, or discussion. Following the Rfc section, I see a new section called "#Organization", with some comments by Gwillhickers, and its own survey and discussion subsections, so not sure if that was just a misfire on placement of some reply, or what's going on exactly. And *that* Survey section (was that supposed to be your Survey section?) has a comment referring to the DNC (?) with a link back to this page again. Can you please unscramble? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2020 (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

• William Finch (merchant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jenos450 (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

After a unsuccessful RfC, I have decided to open this dispute. Kautilya3 has been reverting the edits and can be seen making his own conclusions than follow what the scholar actually wrote. 1. The houses should be changed to "castle" as his own source says so, but he is stubborn with houses to be used. Sanskrit is an extensive language, every word has a lot of synonyms but Kautilya3 seem to question what is actually written in the source. Questioning the scholar and his work. He is also questioning the usage of Castles.

2. He writes "Finch did not describe a birthplace or mention a mosque in the area." Kautiya3 himself came to the conclusion that the exact place is Ram Janambhoomi, this statement was questioned by another user (Vanamonde) but he did not respond to the comment. I believe that assumptions should be avoided and it should be limited to what he wrote in his journal. The article itself says that it can't be the precise location of Babri Masjid. Writing it regardless of its absence in the very source would confuse the readers.

3. The entire quotation about the 'castle' should be included and should not be cherry-picked.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Finch_(merchant)#Synth_concern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Finch_(merchant)#concern

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The changes should be made after considering my reasons and the sources. I am being reverted even after strictly following the policies and sticking with the source. It would be great if someone could look into this.

• Volunteer Comments - The filing editor has not notified the other parties. That is the responsibility of the filing editor. Also, the filing editor (as they stated) started an RFC, which had very little participation, and was not worded in the form of a question, but it was an RFC. The filing editor then withdrew the RFC after it had been open for about three weeks. What does the filing editor think will be accomplished by DRN? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (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

• Anarchist symbolism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

• Vallee01 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Despite the Anarchist Library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq being used as to a reliable information as to what anarchists believe, and the information being present since 2010. This editor believes that it is not a reliable source due to the fact it is "biased" this however makes no sense, the anarchist library can not be used as source for cooking and it is biased but it does tell what anarchists believe.

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

Attempting to disscuss on the talk page however Sangdeboeuf appears to be unwilling to understand.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Recognizing that the Anarchist Library has been a reliable source on Wikipedia for years and accepting that, it is a reliable source when it comes to certain aspects of what anarchists believe. The anarchist library however shouldn't be used for news stories, protests or otherwise as it is extremely biased however it's not towards anarchist symbolism.

You did remove the anarchist library you removed the most of the section "Bisected flag"[15], that's simply not correct, the anarchist FAQ was a source that was removed. Please stop assuming bad faith. I am still engaged in the discussion on the talk page and you haven't responded. Vallee01 (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your diff does not show any edits to the "Bisected flag" section. None of my edits to that section removed any citation to An Anarchist FAQ . Once again, theanarchistlibrary.org was not even cited in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This comment illustrates the frivolous and abusive nature of this filing. There has been no discussion about the the bisected flag on the talk page so far, and Vallee01 has not attempted to discuss this issue anywhere else. The DRN thread should be closed immediately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2020 (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

• Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Leitmotiv (talk · contribs)
• SnowFire (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I removed a few instances of double spacing in the article. My edits were reverted by SnowFire (talk · contribs) with no clear reasoning as to why reverting was necessary. User acknowledges that adding double spaces are stripped out during rendering, so it appears to be counterintuitive to their argument.

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

Talk:Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps Wikipedia needs official MOS policy on double spacing. MOS points out that double spacing is stripped away during rendering, therefore it would appear that de facto MOS is single space, even if it is not explicitly written. If the code is written that way, our MOS should reflect that too. At the very least, pointing out that reverting an edit that is neither productive nor unproductive, appears to be combative and nothing is gained except wasting all our time.

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

• 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beshogur (talk · contribs)
• Amakuru (talk · contribs)
• Zaman (talk · contribs)
• Geysirhead (talk · contribs)
• CuriousGolden (talk · contribs)
• Solavirum (talk · contribs)
• Rosguill (talk · contribs)
• Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk · contribs)
• Ahmetlii (talk · contribs)
• Grandmaster (talk · contribs)
• Sataralynd (talk · contribs)
• WMrapids (talk · contribs)
• Mirhasanov (talk · contribs)
• Ruĝa nazuo (talk · contribs)
• SteelEvolution (talk · contribs)
• Jr8825 (talk · contribs)
• Ermenermin (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)
• Flalf (talk · contribs)
• SMcCandlish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On this article and others. Users changing the term occupation/occupied to "controlled", "disputed", etc. claiming these titles are POV or "loaded". I opened this requested move first, regarding the term, showing that other articles are using the same term, that this is not a POV term. And later, users were changing infobox of the article (2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war), that Azerbaijan captured "the disputed area's border with Iran". There is no dispute in Azerbaijan's soil. That happens with two countries, even Armenia does not recognise Republic of Artsakh. Lot of supranational organisations such as PACE (occupation by Armenia of Nagorno-Karabakh), UNSC (immediate withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all occupied territories), OSCE (Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan Surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh) are calling these areas occupied, although OSCE only calls the surrounding area. I later opened this thread, seeing lot of users voting, but I thought this wasn't going to solve the problem. Sad to say, I was even reported (which is still open) that I called these areas occupation. Thus requesting here to see what administrators can do. Beshogur (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

• Talk:Armenian-controlled territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 21 October 2020
• Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#"disputed" and "controlled" (new link: Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war/Archive 16#RfC: Disputed or occupied

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By deciding what term is appropriate for this.

The dispute arose around the consequent replacement of words "controlled" and "disputed" by the word "occupied" regarding internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan, which are now occupied (UN wording) by NKR also known as the Republic of Artsakh, which is a de facto protectorate of Armenia according to neutral scholars and neutral news outlets. The fact that NKR has its roots in NKAO, a former autonomous oblast within Soviet Azerbaijan, was apparently the reason for the usage of "controlled" and "disputed" differing from UN in diverse less confident sources. "controlled" and "disputed" would be legitimate WP:NPOV terms in case of an ordinary succession, but not in the case of an effective invasion by a neighbouring country. The rational dispute was continuously disrupted by multiple Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts, who push the irredentist cause of a certain nation. Reading and polite answering to the unsound provocative comments of those accounts was a disturbing experience I would wish to never have on WP again.

I don't think "occupation" is a biased or loaded word and it really shouldn't be interpreted that way. As the person who filed this dispute resolution pointed out, UN, PACE and OSCE are all calling it an "occupation" (UN and PACE call both NK and surrounding territories as occupied, but OSCE calls just the surrounding territories as occupied). So, I consider that it is okay to use "occupied" to describe the surrounding territories as almost all important international organizations call it that. — CuriousGolden (talk· contrib) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm for calling it occupation. Cambridge defines it as the act of controlling a foreign country or region by armed force. United Nations (1, 2), European Parliament (3), ECFR (4), OSCE Minsk Group (5), Human Rights Watch (6) prefers the term occupied. Also, in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights emphasized that the surrounding districts (in here, Lachin) was indeed occupied by Armenia (not NKR). This decision was heavily influenced by the fact that from 2002 to 2004 of the 18,000 troops in Nagorno-Karabakh, 8,000 were personnel from Armenia (IISS, "The Military Balance", 2002, p. 66; 2003, p. 66; 2004, p. 82; and 2013, p. 218.). Many more facts were given out in detail, you can see this for detail. Furthermore, Google Scholars give 11,700 results for "occupied Nagorno-Karabakh", and 9,180 more for "occupied Karabakh". Let me remind you that this is about the surrounding districts that the Armenian Armed Forces invaded and occupied, not Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh itself. Occupation is a military term, doesn't have any POV weight to it. See: Allied-occupied Germany, Occupation of Japan, United States occupation of Haiti, Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), and many more. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 19:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Given the amount of editors involved, and the fact that this is a relatively simple A or B question, I think that an RfC will likely be more effective than moderation here. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on which term should be used. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Rosguill about this shouldn't be discussed on DRN before RFC.
• And, I'm still saying "occupied" is a legal term and used it most cases on Wikipedia. Other users gave the supportive materials about it, in here or in the discussion page. I hope someone will do a detailed explanation if they're against to "occupied" because otherwise I doubt the only problem about it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Ahmetlii (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The dispute is over the use of term "occupied" vs "controlled". Occupied is a legal term, and the territories in question are described as occupied by UN, OSCE and other international organizations, i.e. it is not a POV of one of the conflicting sides, but the legal term used in documents adopted by the international community with regard to the conflict. Therefore, I believe that it would be more appropriate to use the term "occupied". Grand master 01:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It is straightforward decision, as most of UN and EU issued documents call these territories "occupied". However, for some reason "disputed" terminology was introduced. For sake of objectivity and removing potential bias from the article I support "Request for Comments" as well but, we must make sure that this person looks to the problem from objective side and properly justifies his/her decision. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rosguill, I think this would be better resolved with an RfC in order to draw in uninvolved editors. It's a relatively straightforward question of wording in the lead, and to me it looks like the problem is that many of the regular participants on the talk page are closely involved in the topic. I think fresh eyes will make more a difference than trying to hash out a compromise within the existing pool of editors. Jr8825 • Talk 20:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

As said by Rosguill and a few others, I think an RfC is the way to go. Flalf ^Talk 00:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would think that the open RfC on the matter will resolve this. After the RfC has run for 30+ days, post a closure request at WP:ANRFC (and ask for admin closure if you think a non-admin closure would not settle the disputation). If there is a concern of too-few participants, try posting a neutral notice about the RfC (and the fact that it involves policy matters like WP:NPOV) to WP:VPPOL. I'm not sure there's much for the dispute resolution noticeboard to do at this time, though administrative oversight to put a stop to move-warring and other disruption might be in order. I would think that the discretionary sanctions that apply to the entire WP:ARBAA2 topic area apply to this article, so any admin should be able to restrain any disruptive activity on the part of anyone notified on their talk page with {{Ds/alert|a-a}}. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - If this is a question of terminology that only has two or three choices but has twenty editors, a Request for Comments will work better than moderated discussion. If an editor wants help in formulating a neutrally worded RFC, one of the volunteers can assist, which may be more productive than attempting to lead a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer note: Leave it as "disputed" for now since changing it to "occupied" could be seen as a WP:NPOV violation. --Excutient ^Talk 12:50, 3 November 2020 (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

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

Users involved

• Mikola22 (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• Sadko (talk · contribs)
• Maleschreiber (talk · contribs)
• Nicoljaus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the article, section "Middle ages", exist information based on one source although exist four sources with same information. Current information from the article [16] does not use information from present source in the context[17]. This means that current information is out of context and thus violates the basic rule of Wikipedia ie WP:OR precisely WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Everything is explained on talk page of this article. This (whole) information is not fringe and sources for this information are two academics(Sima Ćirković and Tibor Živković), one teacher of history and one historian with book which won the award for best book in North America.

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

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Since, in my opinion, the Wikipedia rule has been violated, I suggest that a third party help to clarify whether this is really the case. Thanks.

volunteer comment I' sorry... I think there is a language barrier- I've read your explanation here and on the talk page- and I don't understand what you mean by the sources are out of context? Could you please try explaining that one more time for me? Once I understand, I'm happy to try to mediate. But we do not make decisions here- we facilitate discussions to try to find a compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Nightenbelle: Four sources say that according to De Administrando Imperio and Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII, the Serbs in the seventh century coming from White Serbia to an area near Thessaloniki and from there settled lands between the Sava and the Dinaric Alps. It is a historical context based on historical written data presented in four sources and we do not have ten theories about migration, it is only fact.
• On the other side in the article we have information that "White Serbs, an early Slavic tribe from White Serbia eventually settled in an area between the Sava river and the Dinaric Alps". This information is out of context because information from four sources are not followed and we must stick to the sources. According to four sources Serbs from White Serbia settled area near Thessaloniki, but shortly afterwards they left that area and settled lands between the Sava and the Dinaric Alps. It is the original context based on four sources.
• Otherwise this only information is from 10th century, according to De Administrando Imperio and Constantine VII. It is also a context which is not followed because present information does not mention this fact. Mikola22 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem now. Just moving forward- context is not the word you are looking for. I don't think there is one word that correctly fits what you mean- but the information in one part of the article does not match the information in the sources for another part of the article. I've also reviewed the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to mediate this dispute if all parties agree, but Mikola22 I'm afraid you will need to tag all the parties who have been involved in this discussion. Also, it does appear there is already consensus on which sources and phrases to use because every person on that talk page agrees except you. Now- they may be willing to work with you to find a compramise, but we cannot, at this board, force them to capitulate to your way. You may have better luck with a WP:RFC if you want to try that route, or you may not get enough people who know what is going on with the historiography you all are discussing. So- please tag the rest of the participants, and then we'll make sure enough of them are willing to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I don’t want to bring out conspiracy theory but these editors are always the same when it comes to some problems (Balkan articles). I need neutral non Balkan editors. Can a couple of neutral editors be found on the English Wikipedia?

I'm not asking anyone to capitulate, I'm asking that neutral side say whether partial information from the sources "out of context" is allowed according to the rules of Wikipedia. If you say that it is allowed, mediation is over. I must respect that.

History of this information. This information(in the whole context) was in the article 5,6 mounts. Editor Maleschreiber a few days ago edit information (in the whole context) because of some issue. That is, according to him this information is disputable. On talk page I explained to him that his information entered in the article is not for this fact and that his information do not belong to this article(he presented information about the Serbian name).

After edit of editor Maleschreiber, the editor Khirurg is coming and edit article as he wishes because edit(of editor Maleschreiber which does not belong to the article) is too much information for the article [21] and also he claim that Serbs has nothing to do with Servia or Greece. It is his POV because two academics, one historian and one teacher of history in reliable sources mentioned Servia and Greece in history context which concerns medieval history of Serbs.

Summary, therefore there is no reason not to return old information(in the whole context) to the article. The same information is confirmed in 4 RS and there is no problem with this information, otherwise academics would not use it in their books. Simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not reason to remove this information from the article(see edit summaries for remove reasons). Wikipedia prescribes that we must stick to the source WP:STICKTOSOURCE to avoid such(this) problems. Mikola22 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again- this discussion will not start until you notify all involved editors. I'm going to ask you to stop discussing this here until all have been notified and confirmed their willingness to participate and then we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that everyone has been tagged, Does everyone involved agree to participate in this discussion? If so, please comment below with a short (100 words or less) summary of your position in this dispute and what you would like to see as a result of this discussion. If you decline to participate- please state that. We will continue as long as a majority of those involved are willing to participate.Nightenbelle (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to give this another 24 hours- if I get no response, I will close. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I got an explanation from editor Sadko, so everything is clarified. There were violations of Wikipedia rules but not significant. [22]. You may close discussion today, thanks for the help. Mikola22 (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2020 (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

• Jim Rash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• George Ho (talk · contribs)
• Gleeanon409 (talk · contribs)
• Howdoesitgo1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Instagram post by the article subject has been discussed for a long while. Many editors are reluctant to use the post due to its ambiguity and lack of reliable sources covering the post. However, some other editors insist on using it to verify his supposed sexuality. The article was PC-protected once last year for that reason.

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

• Talk:Jim Rash#Instagram post
• Talk:Jim Rash#Hollywoodmask.com article
• Talk:Jim Rash#agenda

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Editors should learn caution toward writing articles about living persons. Furthermore, policies and guidelines should be prioritized over doing things boldly. Other than that, I leave the rest to DRN volunteers.

• I think the solution of having OTRS team contact the subject—as has been done in similar BLP cases—should be explored. I have only been involved in this for a few days, the OTRS idea is new and may serve to resolve this ongoing issue that seems to crop up every year. Glee ^anon 20:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want the Instagram post to be used in any way. The post has been (mis)used and (mis)cited. Furthermore, other sources using the post are unreliable, like the Hollywoodmask.com article. Readers would be misled by such info and by how the post is (mis)interpreted. George Ho (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Recently, the other user tried the Wikipedia talk:OTRS noticeboard and then contacted an admin about the Instagram post, requesting contact with the actor. The DRN is primarily intended for content disputes, but I'm worried that this would encourage harassing someone off-wiki. Am I wrong? --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: As has been indicated by another OTRS volunteer at the OTRS Noticeboard talk page - were this to be requested at OTRS, I would reject the request. OTRS is to be used for customer-initiated contact, and should not be used to proactively reach out to article subjects. Best, Darren-M talk 09:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been done in the past with success. Glee ^anon 09:31, 23 October 2020 (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

• Gospel of Matthew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Achar Sva (talk · contribs)
• Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User is pushing his POV with a set of reverts, even after being notified of the 3RR.

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

Yes I have, also gotten consensus with another user. . . .

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The filing party want moderated discussion leading to a compromise on a content issue.

Yup, I tried to offer a compromise solution, but Achar Sva convinced me of the fringiness of the claim. Basically, the Gospel of Matthew was written directly in Greek since 80% of its words are either directly lifted or paraphrased from two Greek-language sources (one being the Gospel of Mark, and the other hypothesized by comparison with the Gospel of Luke). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong board, if you're looking for "discrete measures." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Does the filing party want moderated discussion leading to a compromise on a content issue? The filing party should amend their request; otherwise it will be closed as a request for administrative action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note 2.0 I am willing to mediate this dispute- but I want to be sure there is a dispute since it appears the discussion on the talk page is relatively civil and appeared to be moving well. Are all involved parties interested in participating in this mediated discussion? If so, please comment below and we'll go ahead and get going. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (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.