This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options. Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 03:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The dispute is whether or not an author is an independent, reliable source for the article. The particular line in the article is "Edward Niedermeyer, author of Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors, establishes the doxxing of Lawrence Fossi, a Seeking Alpha writer and Tesla short seller, as "catalyz[ing] th[e] loose association of individuals... some of whom were pure financial speculators [...] and others who were motivated by factors other than money."
The subject of the article, TSLAQ, advocates directly for the author on its website (https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/), on top of other apparent conflicts of interest outlined on the TSLAQ Talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You can help by letting us know whether this is an acceptable source for the article and explaining why or why not.
Summary of dispute by QRep2020
Author in question is an expert in the field of automotive industry and published a book used as a reference on TSLAQ that's been reviewed by LA Times, WSJ, etc. I argue that just because someone on the TSLAQ website likes what Ed says in his book doesn't mean Ed's work is somehow invalid. Additionally, a consensus was reached on this matter but that consensus has been ignored in order to bring the "dispute" here.
Summary of dispute by Schazjmd
Schazjmd wrote on Talk:TSLAQ, "There's a book that mentions TSLAQ, Ludicrous: the unvarnished story of Tesla Motors, that might also be useful for the article. I initially suspected vanity publishing, but the book's been covered by Arstechnica and LA Times, and mentioned in Publishers Weekly, so probably reliable. Schazjmd(talk) 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)"[reply]
TSLAQ discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
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.
Contributions have been deleted in the China section by one editor.
Consensus building has been attempted but to little avail.
I feel it would be helpful to have more opinions so that we can move forward in this dispute, so I am asking TransporterMan if he could kindly assist.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (/* Attempt to build consensus concerning recent deletions of contributions to China Section of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic */ )
AND
Talk:List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (Pre-edit war with someone who's broken the 3 revert rule)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
It would be very helpful to get some neutral opinions on this dispute as I feel that the editor in question has a certain ideological bias which has caused him to delete well-written and factual contributions in the section in question, and when questioned about said deletions has failed to show a genuine attempt to build consensus. Of course, that is my opinion.
Looking forward to seeing the opinions of neutral and experienced editors on this dispute.
Here is the evidence of all my attempts to build consensus which have been met mainly by stonewalling:
If you like I will try to find the official source for the letter and add it, but I contend that your deletion and questioning of the source is not helpful given that it is merely the source for the protest letter that is being sourced, not the opinion of “frontpageafrica”.
Update, I have found another African newspaper that contains the full text of the protest letter here: https://www.zambianobserver.com/protest-letter-of-african-ambassadors-in-beijing/
@Donkey Hot-day: I have carefully read you response to my questions and thank you for taking the time to answer each one in good faith (I presume).
Are you saying you would like me to input a source for that information?
If so, can we agree that this one is acceptable:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/asia/china-virus-travel-ban.html
or this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52059085
Let me know which you prefer?
Are you saying you would like me to input a source for that information?
If so, can we agree that this one is acceptable:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/asia/china-virus-travel-ban.html
or this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52059085
Let me know which you prefer?
It is quite clear from the above that the Mexican Ambassador is in fact accusing China of hypocrisy, arrogance and “absolute lack of self-awareness”, so I will be happy to add these as well when I restore my edit, after reaching consensus with you and others.
I am inclined to accept that critique, so will be happy to replace it with this source, if you agree:
“As Coronavirus Fades in China, Nationalism and Xenophobia Flare…Now that the pandemic is raging outside China’s borders, foreigners are being shunned, barred from public spaces and even evicted.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/asia/coronavirus-china-nationalism.html
So, to achieve consensus here I propose adding a new section with an analysis of the provocative attempts by Chinese State Media to stoke xenophobia against foreigners by manipulation of statistics (by publishing the numbers of imported cases without mentioning that 90% were via Chinese citizens).
Can we agree on this proposal?
So, we could delete the phrase “racist abuse: and replace it with “discrimination, xenophobia and racist jokes” and mention the details of the story.
Can we agree on this?
You have also failed to attempt to achieve consensus on using the only other source for the protest letter which I found in the hope of reaching consensus.
As we are trying to reach consensus on adding my entire contribution, you are welcome to identify the “plenty of spacing errors among other things in your revert” so that my contribution will be more accurate. I am happy with that help you offer.
I am happy to delete the word “students” and replace it with “citizens” if by doing that we can agree on re-adding the phrase which you deleted.
Covid-19 health exams are intrusive by nature as they involve quite intrusive throat swabs. If this continues to be a sore point for you or stick in your throat, then I could replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments” which is in the protest letter.
4.F
Can we agree on this?
"Correct it yourself if you dislike it so much (change 'others' to 'those' or whatever), I gave you the grammatically correct version."
@Donkey Hot-day: OK, thanks, I will when the consensus building is finally achieved. I have no wish to change any edits that you made to the section at the moment, whether because of your poor grammar use or your misleading statements, because we are currently trying to build consensus and WP advice is to avoid editing during this process until consensus is achieved.
Kindly re-read WP advice on WP:CONSBUILD and WP:DRNC
@Donkey Hot-day: Regarding WP:PRIMARY Let's look at the advice and polices so that we can build consensus on using the sources that I contributed:
" The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."
@Donkey Hot-day: can you agree that my original contribution was in line with this advised practice?
"Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement."
@Donkey Hot-day: It is clear from the above that the primary sources should be included as well as your secondary ones. So can we agree on this?
"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary
@Donkey Hot-day: Again, regarding the African Ambassador's protest letter, in the hope of building consensus, I am willing to include the two sources that provide the letter in its entirety (frontpageafrica and zambian news) and add your secondary sources, so that anyone interested in checking the details can quickly find the original protest letter and thus make up their own mind as to its contents.
@Donkey Hot-day: Can we agree on this?
"Yes, you've provided no evidence (other than your own opinion) that "Most complaints" in the protest letter are related to enforced testing of African students."
@Donkey Hot-day: What are you talking about?
I provided the evidence which is clear, based as it is on counting the items in the protest letter, while agreeing to replace the word "students" with "citizens" in an attempt to build consensus with you so that the phrase "most or majority of complaints" is valid and agreed by both parties. Instead you WP: STONEWALL again.
"And sure, you can replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments”, & I'll then change it to "demands the cessation of forceful testing, quarantine and other inhumane treatments meted out to Africans" since it's what the secondary, not primary sources say (something you're disregarding)."
@Donkey Hot-day: That sounds OK, I am happy with that edit, I will do it myself then when consensus is finally achieved.
"Personally, the current sentence here is better & more comprehensive than that."
@Donkey Hot-day: Again, your personal opinion which does not really help us build consensus as by "the current sentence", you of course mean your edit.
Summary of dispute by Donkey Hot-day
The conflict first became clear here, and was then taken to the talk page (in the bottom 2 discussions here) when I first brought it up there. I saw several of Wikipedia's guidelines disregarded or distorted, which later included WP:CIVIL with disrespectful allegations levelled against me. It then turned into some rather annoying breaches of WP:TPO in Billybostickson's editshere. Someone after all this mentioned WP:BITE, but the violations here certainly go beyond the average newcomer I encounter. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The statement by User:Billybostickson is long and hard to read. Can a more concise version be provided? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary by Mac Henni
So basically what he's saying is he's been stonewalled. The same could be said of his actions. He's been pushing back with me. MaccoreHenniMii!Pictochat Mii! (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
McLaren F1
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by U1Quattro on 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is an argument about the inclusion of the Dauer 962 surpassing the McLaren F1 mainly because it was proclaimed as the fastest production car in the world by Evo magazine. The same statement was used by a German automotive magazine Autobild some years later. Two editors on the talk page believe that what these magazines have said is true. There was an article posted in two talk page discussions from Evo magazine about the Dauer 962 in which the claim made earlier by the publication was not repeated. Yet the two editors would still take this fact as the main reason for the Dauer 962 to be included in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By explaining a clear definition about the term production car and whether superlatives used to promote automobiles by magazines should be used as a reference on Wikipedia articles in the future.
Summary of dispute by Toasted Meter
Not sure why no one was notified of this. Anyways, I do not necessarily think those magazines are correct, I think that due to the definition of "production car" being so variable it is due to include this differing opinion from two leading automotive publications. U1Quattro seems convinced that Autobild is circularly reporting on what EVO wrote, I don't see any reason to think this is true, I also think it very unlikely that the dispute resolution noticeboard is going to create some authoritative definition of "production car". Toasted Meter (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Drachentötbär
It's about which car succeeded the McLaren F1 as fastest production car. Among the reliable sources there are three different opinions (each supported by several reliable sources). I want to mention all of them in a sentence like
"Depending on the definition of production car it was succeeded by the Dauer 962, Koenigsegg CCR or the Bugatti Veyron" while U1Quattro posts one opinion as fact and ignores the rest which is unbalanced and contradicts the other sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
McLaren F1 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Since the other two editors have commented here, notifying them will not be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator
I will try to moderate this dispute. Read and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Be civil. That is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Be concise. Overly long statements do not help communicate, even if they make the author of the long statement feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve an article, not to talk about editors. Now: Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are? I do not have knowledge of the subject area. I expect you to provide me with the knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors
Production car top speed records have been contentious long before Wikipedia came to be, with little consistency about what a production car is and what counts as a top speed record, take a look at Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims for all the odd minutia of why a car might not be considered the fastest by some even when others say it is. The definition of a production car has varied over the years, at Le Mans in 1993 the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) introduced the LM GT1 class which asked that 25 road going cars of the type be made but only required that one exist at the time of the race, in the end only 13 Dauer 962s were ever made, however it won the most prestigious endurance race as a production car. Skirting the "production car" line was not out of the ordinary at the time, the Toyota GT-One which came second in 1999 met the requirement to have space for a suitcase by somehow convincing the scrutineers that the fuel tank would fit a suitcase and so what if it there is no way to actually open the tank the rules don't say that you actually need to have a way to get it inside, it would fit if you could. The rules of the 2001 American Le Mans Series let the BMW M3 GTR compete in the GT class despite only three road cars being made and zero being sold, the rules were changed the next year to demand that 100 cars and 1000 engines be sold.
On Wikipedia defining the production car has been the subject of extensive discussion eventually leading to the definition used on the Production car speed record page.
Now this dispute is about the McLaren F1 page, the history of the McLaren F1's record is also interesting, the eventual top speed was tested as a two way average at VW's Ehra-Lessien test facility, the two way average is to cancel out wind and any slope in the track. It took a few runs to get to the top speed, in the early runs the car was not being limited by aerodynamic drag becoming so much that the power of the car was equal to the external forces and losses, the limiting factor was the maximum rpm of the motor, after the gear reduction the tires were spinning as fast as they could with the gearing and redline, this is called a gearing limited top speed. The standard car had a redline of 8,000 rpm, due to the lifespan of a bonded rubber vibration damper being reduced at higher speeds (probably also due to being an even number), in pursuit of a higher top speed the limiter was eventually raised to 8,300 rpm and a two way average top-speed of 386.7 km/h (240.3 mph) was achieved in March 1998, the modification was accepted by the publications of the time with Guinness World Records declaring it the world's fastest production car.
The Dauer's record is less well documented, the run happened in November 1998 again at Ehra-Lessien reaching 404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) in what may or may not be a unidirectional run.
The CCR was tested at the Nardò Ring a very large banked circular track and reached 387.87 km/h (241.01 mph) (unidirectional) in February 2005, 14 cars were made.
The specific content at issue is the inclusion of the Dauer, I and Drachentötbär think that two contemporaneous publications describing it as production car provide due weight for it's inclusion, not as definitely a production car but as something that went very fast and was described as production car by reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Dauer 962 was called a production car by Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) regulations in 1994 but those regulations were changed, disqualifying the car from further competing anymore. However, Evo magazine took it to another level and straight away called it the "fastest production car" in the world. When asked for Evo about clarification, the current editor Stuart Gallagher was of the opinion that their publication had not been careful about using this term and on behalf of their publication they were happy to take back what they proclaimed as the author who used the term in their 2003 issue was not associated with the publication anymore. The relevant evidence was posted on the talk page. The publication reserves the right to have a say in wat they publish. It is not the authors. However, the two editors think otherwise. I also reached out to Auto Bild but due to the current situation caused by a global health crisis, they are not available to comment on this. After the disclaimer given by Evo, I have doubts that what Auto Bild has said should be given weight as they didn't use any justification when using a term which has long been a subject of disagreements over the years. It seems that Auto Bild has used it in a promotional sense just like Dauer was using it. Wikipedia also works on consensus and a proper definition was drafted after there was a consensus among editors as a result of a discussion in 2018 at the List of fastest production cars page. In the case of no specific definition, we should stick with the definition which has been agreed upon by a majority of editors related to automobile related subjects.02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC) User:U1Quattro
Second statement by moderator
The first statement is not concise. The first statement is not concise. Please just tell me, in one paragraph, what statement or statements in the article are in question. I will ask for the explanation or justification if I think it is needed, but I want to know what one or two sentences in the article the dispute is about. Continue to be civil. Start being concise, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors
Sorry about making it so long, I guess I took the giving information about the subject area too far.
This is about describing the Dauer as "Depending on the definition of "production car" a successor to the F1's record. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
.[reply]
This is about adding the Dauer 962 as the car which succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car in the world. Two editors think that "we should not contradict reliable sources" when one of them has given a disclaimer and backed out of the proclamation they made years ago. This dispute is also about the definition of a production car of which a consesus based definition is available at the List of fastest production cars page.U1quattroTALK 07:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even within Wikipedia the definitions of production car differ. It's not our task to determine a self-made definition for the public to use, we should report according to reliable sources.
The definitions of production car differ among the reliable sources. For some the Dauer 962 is a production car, for some the CCR is, but not the Dauer and for others neither of them is a production car. This is why some reliable sources name the Dauer, some the CCR and others the Veyron as the F1's direct successor as fastest production car. Naming all three after "Depending on the definition of "production car"... is the best way to handle this.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Guinness' definition should be used on this matter as it was Guinness who declared the F1 the fastest production car in 1998. The whole production speed record thing exists due to Guinness and their definition so it would make more sense if we used it rather than using sources who have used the term for promotional purposes.U1quattroTALK 03:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transubstantiation
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Elizium23 on 01:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Closed 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.
Among the issues are a preponderance of Catholic POV in Catholic and Christian articles, such as this one, Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Augustine of Hippo, and similar ones. Specifically, we are disputing the reliability of certain sources and the particulars of a Pew Research study regarding Catholic belief in the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Provide a neutral evaluation of the WP:NPOV issues at hand, primarily, and ensure all editors are complying with policies of neutrality. Discover the underlying issues here, which unfortunately have been obscured by argument over trivialities. Dr. Ryan E. may want to include more articles in his POV check because he feels there is systemic bias in this topic area.
Summary of dispute by Bealtainemí
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dr. Ryan E.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
If you need ANY more evidence of the POV push we are not disputing the Catholic belief in the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Anupam and I agreed already that there are MANY views which constitute Real Presence that are NON-ROMAN CATHOLIC. Over and over again I see this equivocation that Real Presence cannot mean symbolic and that Real Presence MUST mean Transubstantiation. See scholarly work on this. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Anupam
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by desmay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Transubstantiation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Please notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Industrial and organizational psychology
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Iss246 on 16:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Closed 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.
I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until two other WP editors, WhatamIdoing and Psych12, indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
On the i/o psychology talk page, I had extensive discussions with Sportstir about the dispute. WhatamIdoing and Psyc12 joined in the discussions. They indicated that my writing that OHP is descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine is appropriate. It is accurate. Sportstir disagreed.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by.
Summary of dispute by Sportstir
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Psyc12
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Industrial and organizational psychology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Sydney
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ashton 29 on 08:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Closed 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.
Ashton 29 (talk· contribs) correctly listed me among the involved editors above, but did not notify me of this discussion as directed at the top of the page. I don't know how many others in the list this "oversight" applies to? And whether there's any bias in his choice of who he notified.HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For at least 10 years, a small cabal of the same people have continually opposed my (and other editor's) attempts at creating a montage of images for the infobox on the Sydney page. It is clear that just as many users (if not more) want a montage compared to those who do not, yet the same people come up with the same excuses ("Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure, we don't need montages for cities"). It is akin to stonewalling. AussieLegend is quick to revert EVERY attempt at adding a montage, they shut down discussions on the talk page by refusing to reach compromise. He does not assume good faith, and reverts something when he doesn't like it. A compromise, in my opinion, would be agreeing on a montage with images of Sydney landmarks they approve or agree to have used. However, I believe it is beyond compromising with him, it's essentially his way or the highway and usually he wins out, because many editors have given up because he stonewalls their attempts. To me, this is totally unfair, which is why I've taken this further.
It is not constructive to claim ownership of the Sydney article, as User:AussieLegend has done for at least 5 years now. He/she will not agree to anything, and discussions on the talk page have been useless: they go around and around in circles, and no conclusion can be reached. It has been years. Opposition is the only result I see, but my problem is the opposition is always by the same small select number of users. This is why I endeavour to take this here, or to the Administrator's noticeboard. It needs external observation, moderation, resolution...whatever can help us. According to Wikipedia: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.
Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process." The understanding is not there.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I do believe that there are more users who support a montage than oppose it. As I said, I don't think anyone would have a serious issue with it, aside from one person who constantly stonewalls the process: AussieLegend. Yes, a few others tend to agree with him on the talk page, but their reasoning is sparse and brief. I believe someone without any bias to the article or conflict needs to review the discussion. I want.a montage, as do other users. Please help us achieve it.
Summary of dispute by AussieLegend
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HiLo48
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I stopped reading the allegations here when I saw I was being accused of being part of a cabal. Just checked the definition of that word - "the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot..." I laughed. Any complaint that begins with words like that should be instantly dismissed, and the posting editor disciplined for making such a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Cement4802
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First and foremost, a consensual vote over whether we should proceed ahead with the photomontage amongst all editors involved is needed. This is such an important first step to a resolution, yet this doesn't seem to have ever been done on the talk page, hence why we've always ended back at square one with zero progress, with most editors weirdly going silent or backing out whenever any proposal to hold a vote is introduced. This will ensure that we can dispute any falsely backed claims over whether there has been a consensus or not, which has been the very main problem stalling any form of progress for the last decade. Once a vote is held and we finally get an agreement over the direction in which we should head in for the photomontage, there is simply no point in finding a way to completely satisfy those in opposition to the consensus. Sure, we can take onboard or consider their criticisms and ideas, but we need to simply go with the decision of the consensus and disregard any excuses to once again hold back progress. That's how a consensus works. Again, this has been such a ridiculous occurrence that has always kept progress at square one. Furthermore, editors who actually want progress need to take a more active role in decision making and actually participate in discussions. There seems to be strong overall support for a photomontage, yet every time a decision has to be made over whether to proceed with the photomontage or not, most seem to go silent or inactive, thus repeating the cycle of zero progress. There's no point in declaring your support and then leaving it to a few editors to take on the role of going ahead with a proposal. Nothing will happen. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Gracchus250
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PhilipTerryGraham
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ImprovedWikiImprovment
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Eothan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CamV8
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Trainsandtech
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Sydney discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Observations - First, there has been ongoing inconclusive discussion for about two months over whether to include a photo montage, so that some further step in dispute resolution is in order. It is not clear that moderated discussion is likely to be able to resolve the matter. The positions, in favor of and against a montage, appear to be well-defined, so that there does not appear to be a likely compromise. A moderator would be unlikely to find a middle position that has not emerged after extended discussion. A Request for Comments might be more likely to determine whether there is a consensus. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. The filing editor could resolve that by providing notice. That would notify the other editors that they are being asked to engage in moderated discussion, but the moderated discussion would not be likely to result in a compromise.
The filing editor can provide notice to the other editors, or the filing editor can publish a Request for Comments or request help in formulating the RFC, or discussion on the talk page can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon - It's now more than 24 hours since you posted the above. There has been no response from the OP nor, it seems, notifications of the other named editors. How long must we wait before this is thrown out as an improperly formed and subsequently unsupported complaint that is simply wasting the time of other editors? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 opposing editors say that primary radar data presented by Russian MoD from a civilian radar station is a "viewpoint" which, they believe, is WP:UNDUE[4][5][6]. I said that primary radar data is not a "viewpoint" but "objective evidence" which, according to WP:NPOV, must be present in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Is it really UNDUE since this is a reported objective evidence?
Summary of dispute by Stickee
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
I said it was a primary source, that needs wp:or to draw certain conclusions from. What I also said was that it would be better to use a wp:rs that analyses that data.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note I was not notified of this, I stumbled across a notice on the filers talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now notified the other 2 parties.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may also be relevant [[7]]. This has been going on now for over a week.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of the FTN, its what brought me there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this and deal with it in once place?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Heptor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Pincrete
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Russia has been on numerous cases proven to be not only falsifying evidence regarding MH17 but also intimidating witnesses and investigators. This is the official position of Dutch investigative committee and court[8][9][10]. Therefore any data supplied by Russian official bodies cannot be considered as "objective" due to the fact that it was manipulated, just like dozens of photos and stories published by the Russian official bodies, starting from the "Spanish air controller" to "pilot Voloshin". Cloud200 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that User:Александр Мотин is currently blocked in Russian Wikipedia[11]. A number of disputes raised by and against User:Александр Мотин in the Russian Wikipedia ended unfavourably for him that and most of them were associated with highly biased and POV-pushing edits in the article on the same subject (MH17), just in Russian version. And I have a full deja vu now in the English-language version of the article where this user is currently attempting to re-add well-known fakes that have been discussed endlessly back in 2014, 2015 and subsequent years, starting similarly endless discussions and starting disputes. Cloud200 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the arbitration request regarding unblocking my user account is pending for 8 months [12]. If everything is as simple as the opposing editor says, why is there no decision on my arbitration request within 8 months in RuWP? May I ask you, Cloud200, to point to a "well-known fake", please?--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thread on re-adding stories about Evgeni Agapov[13] as well as the whole thread about Shariy[14] are about re-adding fakes that have been discussed back in 2015 already. Cloud200 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sorry about the dispute on your account on Russian Wikipedia as it definitely shouldn't take 8 months but this doesn't mean you should switch to English Wikipedia and try the same WP:POV-pushing. The whole flood of contradictory stories about MH17 produced by Russian media isn't really a hill worth dying on because they were never created with long-term consistency in mind. Their only purpose was to muddy waters and distract the public opinion from the DSB and then JIT investigations, and they largely failed at both. Cloud200 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this section [[15]] there is a distorted use of a secondary source by K. Giakoumis. The scholar maintains that there has been a long coexistence between the Greeks and Albanians, predating the well documented account of the 14th century Albanian migrations in Epirus and Thessaly, thus challenging the Greek and Albanian nationalistic views.
He presents three documented evidences of an Albanian presence before the migration wave and notes that recent studies in linguistics, onomastics and toponymy attest a much longer coexistence between Albanian and Greek speaking people (verbatim: [they] had been living together all along).
Whereas the text in the article cites Giakoumis, but presents an almost opposite perspective: it briefly mentions one of the three documents as "the oldest reference", while simultaneously contradicting it as unreliable and putting a subtle emphasis to the 14th century migrations, as the only "confirmed" evidence. This view is in fact what Giakoumis himself dubs as "the old Greek nationalistic view" that "serves the concept of national purity".
I rewrote this part by citing a long quote for the sensitive issue, but was reverted twice. To avoid breaching the 3RR, I addressed the issue in a discussion in Talk:Epirus and also WP:NPOVN. Having no reaction or will of mediation for almost 10 days, remade the changes 24h ago, only to be reverted with this tag [[16]]
In the light of these edits, I see a denialist stance that undermines not only the section where the source is present, but the whole article's history, as the issue is a vital part of it. In the talk page there is more information. I hope we can reach a solution to correctly present the scholar's views.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The dispute can be solved by correctly quoting the author of the secondary source and presenting his views for the people he mentions in his study. Synthesizing the author's views by re-framing the problematic sentence and presenting his non-nationalistic views and the recent researches of a much older Greek-Albanian coexistence is important according to the article and the section's time span.
Summary of dispute by Khirurg
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Epirus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.