Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
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 |
Rafida | Failed | Albertatiran (t) | 41 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours |
Palm Springs Air Museum | Closed | BellamyBell (t) | 4 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours |
Tesla Inc. | Closed | Emiya1980 (t) | 4 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours |
Robert (doll) | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 1 days, 20 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours |
Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours |
Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours |
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 1 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 9 hours |
Aidi | Closed | Traumnovelle (t) | 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 13 hours | Traumnovelle (t) | 10 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 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes[edit]
Rafida[edit]
Closed as partially failed and partially being resolved. I have activated the RFC, and it will be used to decide on whether to restore the sentence in question. Discussion of other aspects of the content dispute has failed because one editor has posted lengthy statements that I did not request, and the other editor has complained at some length. This is not getting anywhere. Wait for the RFC to run for 30 days and then be closed. In the meantime, either resume discussion at the article talk page, being civil and concise, or discuss editor conduct at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. There is a higher survivor percentage at an article talk page than at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In a series of edits, I revised and improved this article by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced claims and rewriting large parts of the text. I do this regularly to select articles, usually in preparation for GA submissions. Large parts of my edits were undone without due explanation by the user Shadowwarrior8. In particular, please see [1] and [2]. For a second time, one by one, I addressed the problematic bits of the article, this time carefully detailing each issue separately in its edit summary. Another user, Aqsian313, also helped with addressing some of the issues. For instance, he removed a sentence that I had earlier marked by the [citation needed] template. (Please see here.) All these edits were again undone by Shadowwarrior8. Please see here. This is when I took the issue to the talk page, which you can see here. In particular, Aqsian313 commented there in favor of my version of the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like to ask you to undo the unexplained mass-revert [3] Summary of dispute by Shadowwarrior8[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I reverted a series of disruptive edits made by user Albertatiran which involved the removal of encyclopaedic sources with in-line citations (here) and insertion of several unsourced POV edits. (see the edit history of the page) The user was unable to bring any in-line citation as demonstrated in the talk page of the article. The user's proposed version cant be inserted because it consists of unsourced sectarian POV and removal of sourced content. This issue isnt even a content dispute, because unsourced POV claims have no place in wikipedia in the first place. Content disputes mostly occur when two or more editors differ over how to paraphrase information present in academic sources. On the other hand, the user Albertatiran removed academic sources by engaging in "idontlikeit"-style arguments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Rafida discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Rafida)[edit]The filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has made a statement, so I am willing to try to moderate the dispute. The editors should list and notify the other editors who have discussed the dispute on the article talk page. I know nothing of the subject matter, and will expect the editors to provide any background information that is important. Please read DRN RuleA and state that you will follow the rules during the discussion. The purpose of content discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Zeroth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]
First statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]It appears that the current version is that of Shaddowwarrior8. Albertatiran wants to revert Shaddowwarrior8's edits, and says that they have poor sources. Aqsian313 appears to agree and to support Albertatiran's removal of Shaddowwarrior8's edits. Shaddowwarrior8 has not replied to my request that they agree to the rules. If Shaddowwarrior8 does not make a statement within about 24 hours, I will close this thread due to incomplete participation, and will advise the editors who have said what they want to edit boldly. Are there any questions, or any final statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Second statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]Rather than providing diffs comparing one version and another, I am now asking each editor to provide the actual wording that they propose to use, in the lede section and in the Definition section. After I have seen the different wordings side by side, we will try to reach a compromise. If you are willing to propose a compromise wording, please provide it also. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the follow-up. What follows is the text I'd like to propose, which is borrowed from the version I advocated for in my first statement. In keeping with the common practice around here, references are omitted from the lede below. However, every claim there is already attributed in the body of the article. Albertatiran (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, the following is the wording which I propose to insert in the lede and the "Definition" section:
END QUOTE Note that in the above version, I also made slight improvements in the lede sentence and last sentence of the "Definition" section. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]I have read the two proposed versions. Does either editor have any questions about the reliability of the sources used by the other editor? If so, please state what sources are considered questionable, and we will ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Otherwise, please state briefly and concisely what your concerns are about the other proposed version. Are there any other content issues, or any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Regarding sources, I don't consider a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" a reliable source, especially when there is no shortage of expert material about the topic by the likes of E. Kohlberg and M. Momen, among others. Even if it were to be considered a reliable source, this would have been a case of WP:FRINGE because this particular Britannica article goes against the academic consensus and should receive little or no weight in our article per WP:DUE, let alone replace the experts' views, as Shadowwarrior8 has done in his version. Every reliable source is unequivocally clear that Rafida is a deragotary nickname. Reliable sources are also clear that the title is largely applied by Sunnis (and also by Zaydis, according to some sources) to the majority of Shias for condemning the first three caliphs after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. For instance, please consult the EI article by Kohlberg, cited also in our own article, particularly the first and last pages of his article. There are other major concerns about the version proposed by Shadowwarrior8 but perhaps we can start with the one discussed above. Thank you for your consideration. Albertatiran (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] The main problem with the version of user Albertatiran is that it reduces "Rafida" as a polemical term and denies the existence of shia sects which identified itself as 'Rafida' throughout history. My version is historically accurate as well as academically correct because there have been several Shia sects which identified themselves as 'Raafida' for over a 1000 years. Currently there are many Twelver Shia clerics who identify the Twelver Shiites as 'Raafidites'.
While it is true that Sunni and Zaydi scholars use the term 'Raafida' in a derogatory way, this doesnt mean that 'Raafida' sects who rejected the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abubakr and Omar didnt exist. This is explained in several sources in the article. The term "fascist" is often used as a slur by various political factions, but this doesnt mean fascists do not exist. (I'm obviously not suggesting that "Raafida" are similar to fascists, I am just demonstrating an example in wikipedia.)
Additionally, the religious texts of Twelver Shi'ites are full of praise for the term "Rawafid". Kohlberg's article which is cited above explains this with excerpts from the primary sources of Twelver Shi'is. Furthermore, contemporary Twelver Shia clerics also identify themselves as "Rawafid" or "Rafidah". Here is an excerpt from the website "al-islam.org", which is arguably the most popular Twelver shia religious site in the internet: (source: https://www.al-islam.org/ask/why-are-the-shia-sometimes-called-rawafid-or-rejectors-by-their-opponents-what-did-the-shia-reject/rebecca-masterton ) Another religious website popular amongst Twelver shi'ites is literally titled "The Rafida Foundation". The last two sources are not reliable in wikipedia, but I cited them to demonstrate how Twelver Shi'ah community continues to identify themselves as "Rafida". This is also demonstrated in various sources which I cited above. There has been several Rafida shia sects which existed throughout history, most of which went extinct, except the Twelver Shia. So the page "Rafida" should present an accurate and precise academic information of these raafida sects, (regarding their history, beliefs, evolution, etc.) rather than giving undue weight to the polemical usage of the term by Sunnis and Zaydis. I would suggest that usage of "Rafida" as a derogatory term is outside of the scope of this article and it is better to document that in a seperate article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)". Another problem with Albertatiran's edits is that it contained several unsourced edits with sectarian POV. For example, Albertatiran wrote in the page: "This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers." Obviously, this is a POV edit which explictly advances a sectarian victimhood narrative, and it cannot be inserted in wikivoice. I reverted that edit and re-instated the previous impartial tone, which is more in line with the sources presented in the body of the page: "Several Shia scholars view the term in a favourable light to signify Shias' rejection of whom they regard as oppressive Sunni rulers." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
References
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEKohlberg1979678" is not used in the content (see the help page). Fourth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]I apologize for the delay in responding. Let's try again. Albertatiran says that:Can Shadowwarrior8 please provide a reliable source that indicates that some Shia apply the term "Rafida" to themselves? We should not make a statement about "Every reliable source" if some, even a few, reliable sources disagree. Albertatiran questions the use of the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. There has in the past been no consensus on the reliability of Britannica. Do you want to submit a question to the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the source in the specific context? Since it appears that reliable sources disagree, we should provide an assessment of what the majority and minority of reliable sources say. I would like each editor to provide a revised proposal for what you would like the lede and the Definitions sections to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Please be concise in your statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Hi Robert McClenon, thanks for your time. From my earlier response, let me please quote here again: "Here is the gist of Kohlberg's EI article... Rafida is a pejorative generally applied to Twelvers (the Shia majority) and less so to a number of (small or extinct) Shia subsects. Over time, some Shia figures reinterpreted the term favorably. Why did they do so? Kohlberg speculates elsewhere that Shias realized that they were stuck with the abusive nickname and simply decided to embrace it.[1]" So, the answer to your first question is affirmative, and my version of the article already says so too. Below, I'm quoting from that version: From the lede: "This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers." From the body of the article: "Rooted in early Islamic history, the term Rafida is still used in Sunni polemics, but has also been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify 'rejection' of all tyranny and the Shia struggle against oppressive Sunni rulers.[2]" Also from the body of the article: "Some Imamite Shia scholars consider the term to be an honorific title and identify themselves as Rafida.[3] In the contemporary era, some Shias in Iraq and Lebanon view the term as a source of pride and use it as a symbol of revolt against tyranny.[2]' So, while I'm very much grateful for your help, I'm not sure how this particular question would help settle the dispute. I agree that it's a good idea to refer Britannica to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Should I go ahead and submit a question there? As for your request for proposals, my argument is as before: This Britannica article is not reliable. Even if it were reliable, it's a fringe view that goes against the well established academic consensus. The former says that most Shias accept the first two caliphs, in contradistinction to the latter. The fringe (and factually incorrect) view should receive no weight in the article. The rest of the Britannica article reads like other reliable sources, that is, Rafida is a deragotary nickname, as perceived by most Shias. I can't convey this any better than what I have already done in my previous proposal. However, further down, in the section "Rafida in Twelver Shia tradition," there is room to add more details about how Shias responded to this nickname. Thanks again. Albertatiran (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Well, I already provided several sources which state that the Twelver Shias (also known as "Imami shias") refer to themselves as "Raafida" in my previous comment.
References
Fifth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]There has been a proposal to split the article into two articles, Rafida and Rafida (insult). I would like a concise statement from each editor as to their opinion about this proposal. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not address comments directly to the other editor. We already know that back-and-forth discussion preceded moderated discussion and has not resulted in agreement. You may make suggestions to the moderator as to what he should say to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] I will ask for an opinion from the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the Britannica as a source in the specific context. Fifth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]My proposal was that contents in the page regarding the polemical usage of the term "Rafida" can be transferred to a new article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)". The current "Rafida" article can solely focus on the academic discussion of Shia rafida sects and their history. In my opinion, such an arrangement could present the information in a clarifying manner to a random reader. Otherwise, it may cause confusion to many readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Some) Shias also describe themselves as Rafida, in the same way that a bullied kid may try to "own" his/her abusive nickname. Etan Kohlberg writes that:
To sum, Rafida is a derogatory nickname for Shias which has been favorably reinterpreted by some of them. In my view, the two applications of the term Rafida are too entangled to be split into separate articles. There would be way too much overlap between the articles to justify the split; see WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Ultimately, as noted earlier, this matter should be decided by consensus on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sixth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]One editor has proposed that a separate article Rafia (insult) be split off. The other editor disagrees, but says that this should be put to a vote on the article talk page. We can follow the procedures described in WP:Splitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] If either editor wants a question asked about the reliability as a source of the Encyclopedia Britannica for a particular statement, please identify the particular statement, and I will take the question to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. What other content issues are there? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Sixth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]I dont think there is any reason as to why Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on "Rafida" has to be discarded, when other encyclopaedic books refer to Rafida sects in similar way. Here are some quotations from English-language encyclopaedic books:
Hi Robert McClenon, Britannica's article on Rafida reads,
The above claim is factually incorrect. The (overwhelming) majority of Shias do in fact condemn the first three successors of Muhammad (caliphs). In their view, these caliphs usurped this political position (caliphate) from Muhammad's designated successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib. For them, the first three caliphs thus left the faith.[5][6][7] (For convenience, I've cited here only from our article's current sources.) If this Britannica article is wrong about this basic fact, what other errors could it contain? Why insist on citing a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica" when there are several excellent academic research and reference articles on the topic? (There are exceptions like this Britannica article authored by two well-known Islamicists, which is indeed cited in our article about Ali.) I'd also like to bring to your attention that the other editor's statement consists of disconnected quotes and original research, like this one: "Infact, in the above book's index section, 'Shia' and "Rafida" are used interchangeably." Regarding his other concerns, perhaps those can wait until a later round, since that discussion would distract us from the question at hand in this round regarding the reliability of Britannica in this context. Albertatiran (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]I have posted a question at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for Rafida. One editor has proposed that a separate article Rafida (insult) be split off. The other editor disagrees, but says that this should be put to a vote on the article talk page. We can follow the procedures described in WP:Splitting. I will start the splitting discussion within 36 hours. Are there any other specific article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Seventh statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]@Robert McClenon Regarding other content issues, in the "Context" section there was a statement "
I think that by now in this discussion, I've summed up all the content issues outside of the lede and "Definition" section. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 5:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Thank you for posting the question about Britannica. Do you think we have a verdict there? To keep the discussion focused, I'd like to present only one or two issues in every round and afterward address one or two of the concerns raised by the other editor. I'll also wait until all those issues are resolved before moving on to new ones. I hope this is acceptable.
Lede summarizes the article and commonly leaves out sources for the sake of readability. In particular, the above claims appear in the body of the article with reliable sources:
Why was the above reliably-sourced content removed from the lede? I'd like that to be restored.
Eighth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]One editor opposes a split discussion, saying: The feedback from the Reliable Source Noticeboard is that Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, and that the use of secondary sources is preferred/ Otherwise, there appears to be disagreement about the specific use. So it is best not to include any statements that are sourced only to Britannica. So please identify exactly what changes you want made in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Eighth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for your patience. There are about a dozen instances of content-removal and unsourced edits by Shadowwarrior8 that I wish to be addressed. I'd like to begin with the following, copied from my previous statement. The mass-revert in question removed the following text from the lede:
Lede summarizes the article and commonly leaves out sources for the sake of readability. In particular, the above claims appear in the body of the article with reliable sources:
Why was the above reliably-sourced content removed from the lede? I'd like that to be restored. Albertatiran (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Robert McClenon, I'd largely like to maintain the current version of the article, with a little bit of improvements. Since you've asked to state it precisely, I shall start delineating it.
END QUOTE The above is the same version which I proposed in the second statement. I'd like to maintain the current version of the "Context" and "History" sections. In the "History" section, I am ok with removing sources "alukah.net" and "al-Hussein al-Houthi", as I stated in the Zeroth statement. [PS: Regarding Encyclopædia Britannica, several sources have already been provided (some of which are already present alongside it in the page) which backs up the contents in the "Definition" section and the lede. So, in any case, it is not used as a stand-alone source. I've read several other academic sources which explains "Rafida" in a similar way. It should be noted that there isn't particularly any incorrect information in the "Rafidah" entry of Britannica. Infact, it's contents are more or less in similar pattern to entries regarding "Rafidah" in other English-language encyclopaedic sources.] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ninth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]We will discuss the most significant issue first. The most significant issue appears to be the removal of a sentence from the lede:. This sentence was removed from the lede by User:Shadowwarrior8. User:Albertatiran wants it restored. I Are there any other content issues that either of you want addressed promptly? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Ninth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Tenth statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]I am still asking for a statement of why the removed sentence either should have been removed or should be restored. However, I have another question. The sentence in question was removed from the lede. The lede should summarize the content, or the most important content, in the body of the article. I could not find a comparable statement in the body of the article. Was it previously in the body of the article? If it should be restored to the lede, what should be restored to the body of the article that is comparable? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Tenth statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]Hi Robert McClenon, sorry for the late reply. 1) The lead section should be a standalone summary of the article as most visitors would not continue to read the main body of the article, according to WP:LEDE. This does not mean that every sentence in the lede should be copied from the main article. I've given below the removed sentence and the paragraph in (an earlier version of) the article that it's meant to summarize. (Note the text in bold font). While I'm open to a discussion on the talk page about alternative ways to summarize the paragraph below, altogether removing reliably-sourced content from the lede or anywhere else in the article (without reaching a consensus on the talk page) is unacceptable per WP:REMOVAL. Undiscussed content removal is also almost never done with the intention of improving the article. First, the removed sentence should be restored. Only then there could be a discussion on the talk page about potentially better ways to summarize the paragraph below. Removed sentence:
Corresponding paragraph in this version of article follows next. Later Shadowwarrior8 removed the name of Islamic State and made some other changes to the paragraph below.
2) In their previous statement, Shadowwarrior8 wrote that Britannica "is not used as a stand-alone source." This is false. Footnote 1 of the article quotes the following from Britannica without providing additional sources. Either the quote below should be removed or Shadowwarrior8 should corroborate that claim with reliable secondary sources. Actually, earlier I listed multiple reliable sources that contradict the statement below (that only a minority of Shias condemn the first caliphs for usurping Ali's right to the caliphate). The onus is on Shadowwarrior8 to show that what follows is the majority view in academia.
3) The are several other cases of content removal and unsourced or poorly sourced edits in the mass revert in question. However, I'd like to wait until the above issues are resolved before putting forward the rest. Albertatiran (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Robert McClenon: " Eleventh statement by moderator (Rafida)[edit]At this point I am trying to focus only on the issue of whether to restore the removed sentence. I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Rafida/RFC on Sentence in Lede. After any tweaking, I will move it to the article talk page, and it will become a live RFC for thirty days. In the meantime, you may comment on it. Do not !vote in it until it is activated by moving it to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] I am still asking what sentence that either is or was in the body of the article it is meant to correspond to. When I ask questions about how article content is to be changed, I am not asking for discussion of what the other editor has done or why the other editor is mistaken. Comment at this time only on the draft RFC. Other issues can be discussed later. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Eleventh statements by editors (Rafida)[edit]@Robert McClenon: Thank you for creating the RFC. It's a bit unclear for me when/where I should add my comment. Anyway, below please find my statement. Right venue: The mass-revert in question consisted of several content-removals and unsourced or poorly-sources edits, like this one. However, it seems reasonable to first settle the active issues before moving on to the rest. As for the venue, since unmoderated discussion on the talk page failed immediately, this page is the right place to resolve the matters per WP:DRN. (Indeed, this was Shadowwarrior8's second mass-revert. After the first mass-revert, I addressed the problems with that version of the article in separate edits with explanatory edit summaries. All there these edits were again reverted by Shadowwarrior8 without any explanation, besides the usual labels, like Britannica: In his previous statement, Shadowwarrior8 wrote that, Footnote 1 of our article, which quotes Britannica:
Kohlberg's EI2 (which Shadowwarrior8 cited to support Footnote 1): (Those "sinner" companions obviously includes the the first three caliphs, that is, the usurpers. This is implicit in this quote, but it's made explicit in numerous other reliable sources, including the three I gave in an earlier statement.) Lede: If Shadowwarrior8 believes that the paragraph in question is of minor importance or relevance and that it should be hidden from the majority of visitors to the page (who would not go on to read the full article), then he/she should reach a consensus on the talk page to that effect. Removal of reliably-sourced content is unacceptable per WP:REMOVAL. Quoting from that page, Moderator's question: The removed sentence from the lede does not correspond to any sentence in the body of the article. Article's lede is its summary and need not borrow verbatim from its body. In this case, the following paragraph in the article essentially says that, for some Sunni schools and currents, the term Rafida signifies that Shias have rejected the true Islam and are thus heretics, against whom violence is justified. The removed sentence, in my view, does a good job in conveying that to the reader. Removed sentence:
Corresponding paragraph from an earlier version of the article:
Albertatiran (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Addendum Hi Robert McClenon, somehow I missed the last paragraph of your statement; hence the complaint in my own statement about the lack of clarity. As a result, my statement contains other comments too (but so does the statement of the other editor). It was an honest mistake and I'm sorry about that. However, I'd like to ask that we later revisit the standalone quote from Britannica in Footnote 1. By now I've given four reliable sources that contradict that footnote. Albertatiran (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Robert McClenon: " Despite your clear instruction, the other editor proceeded to bludgeon an incoherent wall of text in the reply, mainly focused on various allegations against me. It is apparent that the other editor treats wikipedia as some sort of personal battleground, as evident from the editor's behaviour pattern throughout this discussion. Robert McClenon: " Despite this clear instruction, the user proceeded to comment here and began discussing other content issues. It's clear that the other editor is engaging in disruptive behaviour that has sabotaged the moderated discussion. This sort of bludgeoning behaviour is totally unacceptable and the other editor should face consequences for this. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Robert McClenon, since I'm not free for some days, I thought I could comment some suggestions regarding this discussion process as early as possible. Do you plan to continue this discussion process during the RfC? Either way, I propose the initiation of some disengagement measures since it has become clear that this discussion is an extended and lengthy process. My initial assessment was that this file would have closed within 1 or 2 weeks; and my responses - which included a mix of arguments, concessions, improvements and quotations from academic references - were oriented towards a quick resolution. (Read "Summary of dispute by Shadowwarrior8"). Hence, I responded at 1 statement/2 days rate. I have a tighter work schedule nowadays in real life, and it is not possible for me to keep up with 1 statement/2 days rate any longer. I propose to conduct the discussion at a 1 statement/2 weeks rate from now on. This can improve the overall quality of the discussion and also increase the decisiveness of each statement. I think such an arrangement may help you as well in analyzing the voluminous discussions in this dispute. Editors are free to take a break, and I shall comment again here in the next Sunday, if there is a new statement from you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
|
Palm Springs Air Museum[edit]
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The discussion should be conducted at Talk:Palm Springs Air Museum. Please discuss the questioned edits at the article talk page, with at least two posts by each editor and taking at least 24 hours. If discussion is then inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have tried to correct/update a page and each time the original page is restored. Two editors doing so thought what I published was too promotional. I read -- and believe I adhered to -- Wikipedia guidelines in two subsequent versions. Everything I published was factual, and I supplied supporting secondary sources. I received no reply to my last Talk entry in an attempt to learn specifically what was still found objectionable, so I am unable to determine how to get the page updated, more accurate, and more informative. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BellamyBell How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I understand this is the initial step I should take in appealing to get my edits approved so am hoping someone will review what I am trying to do and at the least explain why I cannot publish information that would improve the page content. Nothing in my content is controversial. Summary of dispute by C.Fred[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Drmies[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Palm Springs Air Museum discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Tesla Inc.[edit]
Closed as not exactly the right step for resolution of this dispute. There has been an RFC which recently completed its active time, and the filing editor appears to be saying that there is an impasse. However, the RFC has not been formally closed yet. The next step is formal closure of the RFC, and I have requested formal closure at Closure Requests. Please wait for an uninvolved editor to close the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an ongoing debate on the talk page for the article for Tesla Inc. regarding which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox. As far as I can tell, there are three positions which have been articulated in the thread. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. The second argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J. B. Straubel should be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". I should also note that a state court ruled against Eberhard's and Tarpenning's request to be legally recognized as the company's exclusive founders. The third argument favors the status quo (i.e. listing a link to the article's "Founding" section) on the grounds that the facts surrounding this issue are too subject to interpretation to reach a definitive conclusion that will please all editors. Those in favor of this argument also contend that listing some or all of the aforementioned figures will only serve to make the page a perpetual battleground between supporters and detractors of Elon Musk. This discussion has gone on for a month and a decisive consensus has not been reached in favor of any of the aforementioned positions (even after opening an Rfc on the subject). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Tesla, Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? In view of the aforementioned gridlock, I am hopeful that this debate can be resolved via some form of arbitration or suggestion of a compromise solution that most (if not all) editors can get behind. Summary of dispute by Stepho-wrs[edit]
Summary of dispute by QRep2020[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Aaron Liu[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The other parties have summarized the debate well. I'lla add that I was invited to this topic by Emilio's RfC, and currently it's nearly an even split between "list only E+T in addition to the link" and all other options. We agree that the link can stay. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by RickyCourtney[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tesla Inc. discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Robert (doll)[edit]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as premature, and inadequately filed. The discussion on the talk page, Talk:Robert (doll), has not been extensive. I have changed the filing to identify the subject article. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Also, the filing editor did not notify the other editors. If discussion at the article talk page resumes, and is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, listing the article correctly, and listing and notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I, Gabriellemcnell, have been attempting to update Robert (doll)'s page with relevant and factual information that is not currently on the page. The information the page is currently missing has to do with Robert's historical origins, cultural context, cultural impact, and exposure in popular culture. The edits I published were backed by independent sources multiple times where necessary. I received permission and primary source documentation on the updated information regarding Robert through the Key West Art and Historical Society, who are the foremost experts and rights holders of Robert himself. Moments after successfully publishing the edits to Robert (doll)'s page, user @LuckyLouie had reverted it and notified me of this through the talk page on my account, @Gabriellemcnell. I reviewed his reasonings for the revert and attempted to reason with him through my talk page. The next edit I published was removing the sources that did not comply with the FRIND guidelines. By removing the fringe sources, which were LuckyLouie's main concern, I thought the page would stay updated as it complies with the necessary citations for the factual information within. User LuckyLouie took down the page again, within 24 hours, and began attacking my editing character on my talk page. I refrained from further edits to stop any edit warring from happening. I continued my attempts at reasoning with LuckyLouie but they were not able to specify what the exact problem with my initial edits were. User DonaldAlbury then joined the conversation on my talk page and attacked my editing character as well. I have tried to reason with DonaldAlbury and request specific problems to no avail. I do not know what else to do as Robert's page is still out of date and inaccurate. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabriellemcnell How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like to publish the original edits I made to Robert's page that have since been reverted. If I try to publish the page again with these edits, these users will revert it. Robert's page, once updated, needs to be protected or the users involved need to specify what their issue is or the users involved need to be restricted in reverting edits to Robert's page Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DonaldAlbury[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Gabriellemcnell discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Undetectable.ai[edit]
Closed as premature. There has not been extensive discussion on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have attempted to add a "controversies" section to this page on several occasions over the last several months. The user "Comintell" has instantly changed my content back multiple times. They seem to have a vested interest in this company not receiving any attention that could be perceived as negative which constitutes a bias not in line with Wikipedia's values. Their claim is that my sources are inadequate despite being from government websites and articles mentioned on other Wikipedia pages respectively. I don't want to engage in an "edit war" with this user and they have failed to respond to any of my communications explaining my reasoning sent in response to their removals of my content. Please let me know if this user could be kept from editing this page further or simply kept from removing my content which is well sourced and legitimate. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sesame119#c-Comintell-20240520235300-May_2024 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ask this user to engage in a dialogue with me since they seem intent on removing certain verifiable information. I would like to understand their genuine reasoning. Or alternatively remove editing power of this user from the Undetectable.ai Wikipedia page. Summary of dispute by Comintell[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Undetectable.ai discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Ibn Battuta[edit]
Closed, again. A similar request was filed a few days ago that failed to list the other editors, and failed to notify them of this listing. There does not appear to have been lengthy and inconclusive discussion on an article talk page. Request advice at the Teahouse. After requesting and receiving advice, discuss at the article talk page. Do not file another request here unless advice has been requested, and unless there is extensive and inconclusive discussion on an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview 1.Clarity for Modern Readers: The current description uses “Tangier, Marinid Sultanate” and “Maghrebi traveler.” While this is historically significant, it may not be clear to most modern readers. Using “Tangier, Morocco” and “Moroccan traveler” could provide more immediate understanding. 2.Historical Context: While it’s important to use terms that modern readers will understand, it’s also crucial to provide historical context. We can mention that during Ibn Battuta’s time, Morocco was known as “al-Maghrib al-Aqsa” within the broader Maghreb region. This provides both clarity and historical accuracy. 3.Standard Practices: Wikipedia typically describes the birthplace and death of historical figures in relation to current countries, not the ruling entity of the time. This is especially relevant when the entity, in this case, the “Marinid Sultanate”, no longer exists. While Tangier and Marrakech are well known cities in Morocco. Aligning the article with this practice would maintain consistency across Wikipedia.
[[4]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? it would be best to involve an administrator to help mediate this dispute and ensure that the most accurate information is presented on the page. Ibn Battuta discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel[edit]
Closed as probably not the right forum. Moderated discussion at DRN is very seldom an effective way of resolving a dispute with 23 editors. A Request for Comments on whether to split the article is probably more likely to be effective. Also, discussion on the article talk page has not been sufficient. Resume discussion at the article talk page. It might be a good idea also to request advice at the Teahouse on how to proceed with this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an ongoing heated dispute over the level of detail given in the main article related to the coverage of Israel at this year's contest. There is a lot of want to include a lot of detail about the participation of Israel from including it prominently in the lede, to having multiple detailed sections in the main article. There is a need to ensure that policies on neutrality, balance, recentism, excessive detail, etc. are followed. There is a want to include based on the amount of media coverage and a want to include things unrelated to the contest in and of itself. The article is in danger of becoming not an article on the contest as a whole but an article on Israel's participation with some other things on the side. There is already an article specifically for Israel at the Evisovion Song Contest 2024. There is a need to avoid having a duplicate. There seems to be a push to include a lot more information on Israel than is warranted simply because some media outlets spilt a lot of ink writing about it, some people shouted very loudly through various means, and the Middle East conflict seems to drown out everything else it touches. The article needs to resolve how to include Israel while still maintaining focus on the actual Eurovision Song contest 2024, all the while remembering there is a child article specifically on Israel at this year's contest. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There is a need for outside parties who are uninvolved to look at the totality of the discussions taking place related to Israel. There are a lot of Points of view, and a lot of details wanting to be included. There is also a lot of recentism being banded about. This is causing serious bogging down and disputes over what to include and not include. Help is needed sorting this through, with a strong focus on what is an is not encyclopaedic and what is and is not following the Wikipedia pillars. Guidance and reminders of what Wikipedia is not are needed. Help to sort what goes in the main article and what goes in the child article. Summary of dispute by The Satanator[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I agree with PicturePerfect666, the article shouldn't be about Israel primarily. The Satanator (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Yoyo360[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ImStevan[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Super Goku V[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Bugghost[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Piccco[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by F1xesc[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jjj1238[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ceriumlanthanum[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kingsif[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hhl95[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Vkb123[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Edwin of Northumbria[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Spa-Franks[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JohnR1Roberts[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Nickpunk[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really...[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by IJA[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tonyb1989[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HypeBoy[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Uamaol[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kapitan110295[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Eurovision Song Contest 2024 discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Aidi[edit]
Closed as declined by the other editors. The filing editor notified the other two editors, but both of them removed the notification of the DRN filing. Removing the notification of a DRN filing is a rude method of declining to participate in moderated discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary, and an editor may decline to participate for any reason or no reason. Since the other editors are not participating, there will not be moderated discussion, and this thread will be closed. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. A Request for Comments may be the way to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is dispute over whether the origin of the breed of dog (Aidi) should be listed as Morocco or North Africa/Maghreb. I initially reverted the article due to a slow edit war over this, it was later reverted back. I have tried to discuss it on the talk page and have provided multiple reliable sources that state the origin of the breed in Morocco. The other party to the dispute has been unwilling to help. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help to provide consensus on whether the origin should be listed as Morocco or North Africa/Maghreb. Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle[edit]M.Bitton changed the origin parameter in the infobox to state 'North Africa' instead of Morocco. This is despite it being listed as originating in Morocco by the FCI and several published sources: [5] [6] [7] Summary of dispute by Skitash[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by M.Bitton[edit]Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Aidi discussion[edit]Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|