Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Nova Scotia | In Progress | Danachos (t) | 7 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, |
Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe | New | Tet (t) | 5 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, |
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church | Closed | Pbritti (t) | 4 days, 20 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 5 hours |
Zachumlia | Closed | Theonewithreason (t) | 2 days, 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 17 hours |
Manipulation (psychology) | In Progress | Darcyisverycute (t) | 1 days, 19 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours |
Zachumlia | New | Theonewithreason (t) | 1 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 6 hours |
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 23:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 |
Current disputes
Nova Scotia
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
User Danachos updated the Nova Scotia page to include Wabanaki history in the intro and in the History section. There were several edits made. User Magnolia677 blanket reverted all edits citing issues with the Creation story being irrelevant to the History section. Danachos undid the revision, requesting more targeted edits rather than blanket revisions. Discussion occurred on the Nova Scotia talk page, and a consensus was reached to not have the Creation story present; however, there were requests to not erase Indigenous histories, such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties mention in the intro or the more beefed up pre-European section of the History section.
Users Moxy and Magnolia677 reverted the article back to its near-original. To note: The European information remains unsourced, such as the Acadian presence and treaties between Britain and France. The problem both users seemed to have were the fact that the Wabanaki information was unsourced, with user Magnolia677 further claiming that information––such as the Peace and Friendship Treaties and the districts of Mi'kma'ki that overlap with the modern day province––"is almost entirely out of scope and only marginally relevant to Nova Scotia."
User Danachos then, in response to both the need for citations and to its 'marginal relevancy,' rewrote the previous edits, making changes here and there, and added appropriate citations throughout.
User Danachos made special mention to both Moxy and Magnolia677 about how frequently European histories are favoured over Indigenous histories, and there is a history of censorship when it comes to equal-footing writing. I (Danachos) urge those deciding upon this dispute to consider the uneven requirements made of Indigenous inclusion compared to European inclusion and to make note of the consistent history North America has in the erasure of Indigenous topics and presence. The goal of the Nova Scotia page is to have a more equitable overview of the province.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Nova_Scotia#The_Creation_Story Talk:Nova_Scotia#Wabanaki_History User_talk:Magnolia677#Nova_Scotia
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Most basically, the addition of more than just three users is helpful. Further, additional viewpoints (and different sets of biases) should help round out this issue. Finally, although I (Danachos) have a long history on Wikipedia, I still do not entirely understands the steps needed to advance issues; having users of more expertise should assist this process
Content in dispute
Miꞌkmaq: Nopa Skoꞌsia[1][2] The land that comprises what is now Nova Scotia was inhabited by the Miꞌkmaw Nation at the time of European exploration.[3] Their country, Miꞌkmaꞌki, has existed within the Dawnland region[4] since time immemorial.[3][5] In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk.[6] Britain fought France and the Wabanaki Nations[7] for the territory on numerous occasions for over a century afterwards.[8] The Fortress of Louisbourg was a key focus point in the battle for control. In the fight against the French, following the Great Upheaval (1755–1763) where the British deported the Acadians en masse, the Conquest of New France (1758–1760) by the British, and the Treaty of Paris (1763), France had to surrender Acadia to the British Empire. Once surrendered, the resulting jurisdiction included what would later become Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in 1769 and 1784, respectively, and encompassed much of the Wolastoqiyik and Miꞌkmaw countries.[9] The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[10][11] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[12][13][14]
The conflicts with the Miꞌkmaq and other Wabanaki Nations settled down with the signing of the Peace and Friendship Treaties between 1725 and 1779,[8][15][16][Note 1] where oaths of allegiance were given during Treaty ceremonies to guarantee the Miꞌkmaq the protection and rights as British subjects.[17] During the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), there were attempts to recruit the Miꞌkmaq to fight against the British.[18] Instead however, the Miꞌkmaq renewed their oath of allegiance with the British Crown and affirmed their bonds of peace and friendship.[8][17]
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki[3] or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[19] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna.
Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw.[3] The eighth district, Tqamkuk, is today understood to be Newfoundland. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi),[3] which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital of national Mi'kmaw governance today in the Potlotek reserve.[19][20] Representatives from across Mi'kma'ki sat, and continue to sit, on the council which consisted of captains (Kji'keptan), who led the council, wampum readers (Putu's), who maintained treaty and traditional laws, and soldiers (Smagn'is), who protected the people, as well as a women's council.[19][20][3]
Mi'kmaw Law is called Netukulimk which drives and oversees the use of the natural bounty of Mi'kma'ki "for the self-support and well-being of the individual and the community."[21] Functioning as the foundation of sustaining Mi'kmaw families, communities, and society[22] in order to achieve "adequate standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity, or productivity of [the] environment,"[21] this mindset understands the whole of life to be interconnected, describing the rights and responsibilities of the Mi’kmaq with their families, communities, nation, and eco-system.[23]
Notes & Refs
|
---|
References
|
Summary of dispute by Magnolia677
This Indian tribe covered an area much larger than Nova Scotia, so adding five paragraphs and two photos unbalances the article. Moreover, the text is hardly relevant to this article about a Canadian province. Maybe if this tribe had made a large contribution to the province's development--built a railway or a university--then of course, but five paragraphs about their superstitions and treaty signing does not improve the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Moxy
As mentioned before WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.....better article for this information would be at Miꞌkmaq or Wabanaki Confederacy...not a provincial article. Why are we talking about a huge region spanning Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New England in this article?Moxy- 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This space is for a summary of the dispute by Moxy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Nova Scotia discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. One editor has responded, and so is aware of the filing. Notification of the remaining editor on their user talk page is required. The space that is provided for a summary by an editor is for a summary by that editor, not for discussion of the summary. Any discussion at this noticeboard is supervised by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- How exactly do I notify them? I let Magnolia677 know in two separate places that this dispute resolution has been filed Danachos (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Nova Scotia)
I will act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules. There will be no back-and-forth discussion. I will ask the questions, and you will address your answers to me and to the community. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not communicate effectively; sometimes their main purpose is to make the poster feel better. Please read the rules a second time. Discuss content, not contributors.
It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct? I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change. If you have any other questions, please ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by editors (Nova Scotia)
Statement by Danachos:- In response to: "It appears that one editor wants to add information about a First Nation creation myth, and two editors disagree. Is that correct?" This is incorrect. The original edit did indeed have a creation history added alongside additional historical information (in the history section above "European Settlement") and along with an updated introduction. After that was reverted—citing the creation history was not necessary on this page—I conceded that point and stopped trying to add it in. I do not wish to have the creation history present nor have I tried to include the creation history in the last several attempts to edit the page.
In response to: "I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what in the article they want changed": What I would like to see changed in the article is everything you see here on the dispute resolution page. 1) To maintain the name "Nopa Sko'sia" at the beginning of the introduction (note: I did not add that in myself; it was deleted along with my edits by one of the cited editors here in this dispute resolution; after its deletion, I re-added it along with my other edits, adding two sourced citations for its use as Mi'kmaw translation of "Nova Scotia"); 2) Update the introduction to the page that integrates Wabanaki (and, specifically, Mi'kmaw) history. This means updating the language to the modern Canadian standard (i.e., referring to the nation as a nation, talking about their country as a country, considering treaties made with Indigenous nations equal of importance to treaties made with European nations, etc.); 3) Updating the History section of the article to include a proper section prior to "European Settlement" (labelled in my edits as "Indigenous Dawnland" referring to the region's translated English name) rather than the current measly two sentences that are on the live page. I also moved the current Mi'kmaw family photo down to the appropriate time (photo was taken in 1871, so I moved it to the "19th century" section, the 1870s part of the history section), and I included under Indigenous Dawnland two maps of the countries of the region, showing all the countries of the Dawnland or Wabanaki Confederacy and zooming in on the Mi'kmaw country (again, please note: five of the seven / eight districts of Mi'kma'ki historically and currently overlap with Nova Scotia, including the country's capital at Mniku, Unama'ki, in Potlotek). Danachos (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
First comment by random editor (Nova Scotia)
I look at the above content, and it seems very solidly sourced, and relatively well written (I'd omit flavourful language 'time immemorial' in favour of 'record history' or similar). There is certainly a place in the Nova Scotia article for this most of this content (the first three paragraphs, the last two doesn't belong in the Nova Scotia article but elsewhere), though in the lead in this version was substantially too wordy. Particularly mentioning the individual 'districts' seem out of place (like in In 1605, Acadia, France's first New France colony, was founded with the creation of Acadia's capital, Port-Royal, in one of the eight traditional districts of Miꞌkmaꞌki called Kespukwitk. or The resulting modern day territory of Nova Scotia overlaps with the Miꞌkmaꞌki districts of Piktuk, Sipekniꞌkatik, Eskikewaꞌkik, and the country's capital territory (or "fire"),[18][19] now most popularly known as Cape Breton, Unamaꞌkik.[20][21][22], which could simply be summarized as the 'territory of the Wabanaki Confederacy', or alternatively 'the Wabanakik region' or similar). The lead should cover the very broad strokes, not the finicky details. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by Moderator (Nova Scotia)
The filing editor listed two other editors, User:Moxy and User:Magnolia677. They made preliminary statements, but have not replied to my request for a first statement. I will ask them whether they will reply, in one or two paragraphs, to the filing editor, who wants to introduce large amounts of additional material into the article. I will also ask the filing editor if they wish to make an additional one-paragraph statement. If the other editors do not want to discuss the rewriting, then we will figure out where to go from here. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
Just to much...not the place for laws and myths of one group comprising only 0.51% of the population ......i am ok with what is below ...not the above.... Lead a whole other issue as are other articles. Moxy- 07:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
What is now considered Nova Scotia overlaps with several districts of the Mi'kmaw Country, called Mi'kma'ki or also spelled Mi'gma'gi,[1] in a region termed "Dawnland" by the local Indigenous nations. Dawnland, or Wabanakik, encompasses the territorial entirety of the Maritime provinces and New England as well as Newfoundland. The Mi'kmaq, also called L'nu in the Mi'kmaw language, would later become one of the constituent nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, whose territorial integrity would include countries such as Wolastokuk and Ndakinna. Traditionally, Mi'kma'ki maintained seven autonomous districts headed each by a Sagamaw. The core of Mi'kmaw governance occurs through the Sante' Mawio'mi, or Grand Council (also called the Mi'kmawey Mawio'mi), which resides at Mniku in Unama'kik, and which still functions as the capital today in the Potlotek reserve.[1][2]
References
- ^ a b Gallant, David Joseph. "Mi'kmaq". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. Retrieved 20 June 2022.
- ^ Battiste, Jaime (2008). "Understanding the Progression of Mi'kmaw Law". Dalhousie Law Journal. Cape Breton University. 31 (2). Retrieved 20 June 2022.
Third statement by moderator (Nova Scotia)
I am going to start over again. It is not clear to me whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, we will try to resolve it. If not, we will close this case.
Please read the ground rules and comply with them. (There hasn't been a problem in that way so far.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, whether they think that there is an issue about the content of the article, and, if so, what is the issue. If you want to add something, tell where you want to add it, either to a section or between sections. If you want to subtract something, tell what you want to subtract. Otherwise, please explain concisely what you want changed. Then we will decide where to go. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Nova Scotia)
Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Tet (talk · contribs)
- Knoterification (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The dispute is mostly about race and racism. The other editor is trying to downplay or deny the involvement of white Brazilian in the killing, or of a white Brazilian reportedly harassing a journalist by trying to do a literal translation from Portuguese to English. It is quite hard to assume good faith considering that in a different article about race relations in Brazil, this user removed all the content, which I have replaced with plenty of sources. this edit
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have shown multiple sources contradicting the claims and edits of this user, but I was ignored. He is still repeating arguments that the sources linked throughout the article explain why racism and xenophobia is a relevant to the article about the murder. Even his own sources contradict his edits. I also see no rational argument to remove any mentions of white Brazilians when corroborated by reputable sources.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I honestly am trying this venue because I don't know a less aggressive way to deal with it. Should this fail, I will try the admin's noticeboard.
Summary of dispute by Knoterification
- He opposes two of my edits to the article.
- In one of them I use a source where one of the killers claims he has "the same skin colour as the victim", which he thinks should not be included. In the complex and ambigous racial panorama of Brazil it is not at all clear the killers were "white", just look at their pictures, and actually no source claims they were. Tet opposes my edit because he claims the article I used as a source states that even if the killers were black or brown it would still be a racist killing. Again, my point is not to claim that it was, or it wasn't a racist killing, just to add the information about one of the murderers statement about his skin colour, and how he used that to claim it was not a racist killing.
- Secondly I edited a statement about a black reporter being harassed during protests against the murder. In the source he uses the term "gente de pele clara", meaning "people of light skin", which Tet translated in wikipedia as "white Brazilians", I edited and changed it to "people of light skin", to better reflect the source. If he wants to add the information about the reporter being specifically targeted by a white men, in addition to being harassed by people of light skin, I think it is fine.
- In relation to my edit on "dominant minorities", I understand that it was wrong to delete his contribution and I should have discussed that on the talk page. For that I appologise.
- But my point in that action was none of the sources claims white Brazilians are a dominant minority. They are sources that show that white Brazilians are in average wealthier and suffer less violent deaths than black and brown Brazilians. For the reasons I already explained, I don't think that is enough to make the claim that "white Brazilians are a dominant minority" like the other ones listed on the article (white South Africans during Apartheid, Alawites in Assad's Syria, Americo-Liberians in pre 1980's Liberia etcc) Knoterification (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor writes
It is quite hard to assume good faith
. It is necessary and required to assume good faith at this noticeboard. Questions about bad faith can be raised at WP:ANI, if they must be raised. So comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Should I move this to ANI then? Tetizeraz - (talk page) 19:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Volunteer Reply - Only after you have read the boomerang essay if you really think that you have a strong case that the editor is editing in bad faith. If so, that is where you should report a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Kabagambe)
This is a preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. Do either of the editors want to make any changes to the article? If so, please make a concise statement as to what you want to change in the article. Comment on content, not contributors. If no one has any concerns about article content, we will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by editors (Kabagambe)
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Closed discussion |
---|
Zachumlia
Closed discussion |
---|
Manipulation (psychology)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Manipulation (psychology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Darcyisverycute (talk · contribs)
- wiki-psyc (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [1]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.
What I changed:
- I updated the sections on predispositions to use modern data from review articles about the influence of gender and other factors
- I tried to remove stigmatising language in the spirit of WP:MEDLANG by rewriting "manipulators" to "people who manipulate"
- I rewrote the "mental illness" section to describe in more detail which mental illnesses are associated with manipulation and removed those I could not find evidence for (in the DSM-5 or elsewhere)
- I added information about assessment tools for manipulation
- I removed self-help material based on the understanding that it is not a reliable source for psychology as it is not subject to peer review and is not empirically founded
- I mention the relationship between manipulation and machiavellianism
- I removed and disagreed with the use of ethics citations for the article about psychology
- Removed "see also" entries covered in disambiguation page
What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:
- Because there is no specific page for philosophy/anthropology of manipulation, that content belongs on this page
- Manipulation is not pathological and should not be written as such
- The contents of my edit constitutes original research and cherry picking not consistent with existing academic consensus
- The page should not discuss topics irrelevant to manipulation, including machiavellianism, and details about assessment
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute (note: subheading was renamed by wiki-psyc recently)
- Posted a neutral statement on WikiProject Psychology asking for feedback from other editors:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Discussion_on_talk:Manipulation_(psychology)
- [2] (not picked up by 3O)
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
- Establish agreement on whether a separate anthropological article can be made/split
- Ensure understanding of WP:OWN which appears to be relevant given the article's edit history
- Determine relevance of including details about assessment and machiavellianism
- Agree on article content describing which and how mental illness are related to manipulation
Summary of dispute by wiki-psyc
A third opinion was requested by Darcyisverycute, which she is also disputing.
Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#Content_discussion/dispute
The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Manipulation (psychology) discussion
Zeroth statement by moderator (manipulation)
This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by editors (manipulation)
I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and
- 1) I would suggest that it is best to build on that framework/perspective.
- 2) I would also support a re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) if that would be helpful and
- 3) I would recommend against re-writing the article to characterize manipulation as a psychiatric pathology because
- a) the is not the primary use of the term and
- b) the psychiatric mainstream literature does not support this idea. For the most part, "manipulation" appears in the clinical literature in symptom lists and in some esoteric work measuring its presence or use. A simple search using Google Scholar for terms such as "pathological manipulation", "clinical manipulation", "manipulation pathology", "sub-clinical manipulation" will yield little or nothing. A Google General search will mostly pull up these terms from unreliable sources like hobbyist psychology youtube videos, message-boards, blogs, and self published e-books. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (manipulation)
Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?
Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?
One editor has put a {{disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.
There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors (manipulation)
Zachumlia
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Theonewithreason (talk · contribs)
- Santasa99 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
This dispute last for 6 months, and it goes in circles, recently editor reverted the edit for they were banned from the page, ignoring what actually says in sources, the quote goes like this: Most of Hum interior was settled by Serbs and belonged to Eastern Church (under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church, editor only left that "and belonged to the Eastern Church after the Great Schism" saying that the source from 1994 is aggematters, additionally I added even more sources on tp, but again there is no progress, I am asking someone to construct and expand the demographic section based on sources, since the dispute goes nowhere.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zachlumia
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please expand the demographic section based on added sources on talk page
Summary of dispute by Santasa99
Zachumlia discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing party has not yet notified the other editor of the filing of this request for mediation. The filing party should notify the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)