Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 252

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 245←Archive 250Archive 251Archive 252

Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria.

Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Through neutral mediation

Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist.

Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Simonm223

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because it involves India and so is within the scope of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. By agreeing to participate in this discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)

Hi, firstly thank you for agreeing to act as a moderator here @RobertMcClenon. This is a relatively esoteric and hyper partisan topic on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping this platform will guide us to consensus through Wikipedia policy.

I believe some context may be needed here: Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Sikh activist who lived in British Columbia, who advocated for the secession of Punjab from India, in order to create a religious state called Khalistan; the movement faced a heavy crackdown in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and many supporters of the movement moved abroad. India had accused Nijjar of heading a Khalistani militant outfit and directing violent crime in India, well before he gained mainstream attention and notoriety in Canada after his 2023 killing. The Indian media released photos of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 and Nijjar alongside another prominent Khalistani militant (who by his own account admitted to having directed killings in favour of the movement) a decade beforehand. His name was included on a "most wanted person list" the Chief Minister of Punjab gave to the Canadian Prime Minister in 2018. After his killing, Canadian authorities accused Indian government agents (and later diplomats) of having played a role in the killing, which incited a major diplomatic fallout. Canada and India have long had strained relations over the issue of the alleged harbouring of Khalistani militants, with India accusing Canada of being a refuge for them and being unwilling to crack down on Khalistan militants.

We have a section on Nijjar's Wikipedia page "Allegations of militant activities" where India's accusations against him are discussed. A substantial amount of that section was written through this Canadian Globe and Mail report, which analyzed some of the claims against him, and seemingly corroborated some of them (indicating that Nijjar was affiliated and involved in some capacity with Khalistan Tiger Force, had connections with prominent militants, close Canadian associates stating he led 5 men in weapons, GPS, target practice in the BC wilderness etc) and disputed others (stating that Canadian authorities did not believe India provided sufficient evidence to arrest Nijjar, that Indian diplomats were overzealous in labelling some of Nijjar's activism as "terrorism".)

India, for some time has alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, reportedly a gangster who absconded to Canada in 2018, accused of directing crime and murders in India in favour of the Khalistan movement. Dalla and Nijjar lived in the same city, were in the same profession (plumbing), and Dalla went to the same Sikh temple Nijjar was the head of. Arsh Dalla has himself talked to the Indian media, stating that he killed people and committed violent crimes, and was recently arrested in Ontario in connection to a violent shooting. India requested his extradition from Canada, but it supposedly was rejected.

My stance is that we should include a brief few sentences or paragraphs surrounding Dalla's alleged connection to Nijjar. This is consistent with the tone and content already in the aforementioned section, which was agreed upon between myself and GoDG back in June/July. As militancy is often conducted through concerted efforts with other like minded individuals, we should provide details of associations, if 1) Those associations were discussed or alleged in length in WP:RS and 2) if Nijjar used the association to conduct or facilitate clandestine activities, either though his own direct involvement or commands.

This is what the Globe and Mail report:

India also claims Mr. Nijjar was connected to yet another Sikh plumber from Surrey: Arshdeep Singh Gill, a 26-year-old who came to Canada from Punjab in 2018. India alleges Mr. Gill runs a criminal network that has close ties to the Khalistan cause, but Mr. Nijjar’s lawyer and friends dispute the alleged link between the pair.

Mr. Gill is the reported head of the Dalla Lakhbir gang, accused of using Canada as a base for a violent extortion ring in Punjab. He’s recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs. Wire-transfer records and WhatsApp messages filed in Indian court show Mr. Gill, alias Arsh Dalla, along with his wife, sent tens of thousands of dollars via Western Union and other money-transfer services to men India alleges are part of an extortion and weapons-smuggling network. India alleges Mr. Gill co-ordinated the attempted murder of a Hindu pandit priest from Mr. Nijjar’s village in 2021, under direction from Mr. Nijjar. One of the accused in that case told police Mr. Gill called him on WhatsApp from Canada in January, 2021, and “told us that as per the order of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, you have to kill a priest namely Kamaldeep Sharma,” according to sworn statements filed in court. The priest was accused of sexually assaulting women in the village, according to the confession. But the priest, in an interview in Punjabi, told The Globe the attempted murder, a shooting, was a dispute over land and he did not believe Mr. Nijjar was behind the attempt on his life.

Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book. The Globe was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill’s group.

These are 2 recent CTV (another prominent Canadian news organization) reports: Dalla has lived in Canada for several years. According to multiple media reports in India, he’s also a known associate of Hardeep Nijjar -- a Sikh separatist activist who was involved with the Khalistan movement which calls for an independent Sikh state. This CTV report states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's.

We also have various reliable Indian news reports which state that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. I will be citing The Hindu and The Indian Express, both of which regularly provide very well researched and comprehensive news. There is already consensus on Wikipedia that these 2 sources are reliable-The Hindu in RSP and The Indian Express in RSP.

The Hindu states

Arsh Dalla was a close aide of the then KTF chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down by unidentified assailants in the parking lot of a gurudwara in Canada’s Surrey on June 18, 2023. Subsequently, he took over as the outfit’s operations.

The Indian Express states

The Canada Police have arrested Arsh Dalla, a designated terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and a close aide of slain Khalistan separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Dalla will be produced before a local court tomorrow...The NIA had designated 27-year-old Arsh Dala as an individual terrorist in 2023. He started off as a small-time gangster in Moga, Punjab, before fleeing to Canada in 2018. There, he came in contact with Khalistan Tiger Force chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar and began collaborating with him. The Globe and Mail has described Dalla as a plumber in Surrey who frequented the Guru Nanak Darbar gurdwara, where Nijjar was the president. The paper, unable to reach him, had reported: “He’s [Dalla] recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs.” An NIA chargesheet filed in July 2023 alleges that Dalla used his connections in Punjab to form a “terrorist gang”. “He, along with Nijjar, raised funds through extortion and targeted killings of businessmen and leaders from specific communities in Punjab,” states the chargesheet.

My stance is specifically to summarize the Globe report, the CTV reports, and the last 2 sources to provide a brief explanation about Nijjar and Dalla's alleged association, something along the lines of India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A June 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report, and various Indian news outlets assert that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. Gill has denied supporting the Khalistan militancy.

BLP policy surrounding Dalla
WP:PUBLICFIGURE- Has a multitude of reliable sources reporting on the subject.  Done as there are numerous Indian and Canadian sources reporting on him since Jan 2023.
WP:LOWPROFILE Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.  Done per [1]
Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)

One editor has made a concise statement that information about Arsh Dalla should not be included in the article. Another editor has made a concise statement that the information about Arsh Dalla should be removed from the article. Another editor has made a statement that is long, when I asked for a concise statement, about Arsh Dalla, and says that a few sentences or paragraphs about Arsh Dalla should be included in the article. (A 1380-word statement is not concise.) There is no mention in the article about Arsh Dalla. It appears that there is a content dispute because one editor wants to add material about Arsh Dalla and the other two editors do not want the information included. My request to the editor who wants to discuss Arsh Dalla is: Write the draft paragraph about Arsh Dalla, and let the other two editors and the moderator read it. After we know exactly what the proposed added text is, we can discuss better, and can better assess whether it will satisfy the policy on biographies of living persons, and the guideline on due weight.

Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)

  • I believe there is an issue with the "Allegations of militant activity" section overall and that it should be shortened considerably. I think it has too much WP:WEIGHT on minute details of specific allegations, either unproven allegations of criminal activity or "X was friends with Y who did Z" type statements. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar)

One editor has stated that they want to add information about Arsh Dalla to the article. Another editor has stated that they want to shorten the section on Allegations of militant activity. The editor who wants to add information about Arsh Dalla is asked to write the draft paragraphs for review. The editor who wants to trim the section on allegations of militant activity is asked to write a draft shortened section for review.

After the draft sections are available for review, I will ask for comments on them.

Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar)

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.

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

The article 2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake was redirected here after a discussion there rather than talk page here that it didn't warrant an article alone, but that it's content was valuable to this article. The user who initiated the afd for that article has issue with any mention of the earthquake existing anywhere despite the consensus of the closed afd. The only discussion we've had on this article is in the edit comments.

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that prose of the article should include mention of the event since it did garner widespread coverage. The list of events on the article may not be the best way to incorporate the earthquake, but an editor could turn the list into prose. I don't have confidence I could do that without the other user reverting the edit.

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone 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.

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This WP:BLP article has a controversy section.

The controversy is about a scientific study that the author did not publish because she was worried about the interpretation of the findings, according to a NYTimes article.

The following passage is what drives the dispute:

The study was part of a larger NIH-funded project studying the impact of gender-affirming care on transgender youth. There was also 28 other peer-reviewed studies for the project that were published, many of which were co-authored by Olson-Kennedy and showed positive results from puberty blockers.

  1. I claim that this is not part of the controversy (because it is not controversial that other studies were published) and should be removed, while other editors claim it is part of the controversy and should remain.
  2. I claim that digging into the results of the studies constitutes original research, as I believe it was done in order to characterize the results as "positive", because this characterization is not part of the NYTimes article, but rather appears to be a personal assessment.

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

On Oct 24, I opened a section on the talk page at [2]. The discussion has come at a standstill, there is no response from the other parties and we are still in disagreement over the content.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify if the contentious passage should remain or be removed.

Summary of dispute by Usr Trj

  1. I believe that it's worth mentioning the results of the other studies since the unpublished study was only one part of a larger project and many of the other studies that were apart of this project were published and showed different results than the one that wasn't published. A big part of the controversy was the fact that the unpublished study showed negative results and was believed to be purposely suppressed because of that. So I think it's worth mentioning that other studies in this project which were published did not show negative results like the unpublished one. This is confirmed in the New York Times article which is currently the main source for the section.
  2. I also agree with User:Esqueer that removing the passage will create the impression that no research from this specific project was published at all. Since controversy centers on the fact that a study wasn't published, it should be worth mentioning that other studies in the project it is apart of were published as this is important context. Usr Trj (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Esqueer

NOTE the summary was written by me; I do not understand if this space is for User:Esqueer or for me to fill out. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. Claims that removing the passage will create the impression that no research was published at all. [1]
  2. Claims the material is properly sourced. [2]

Johanna Olson-Kennedy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johanna_Olson-Kennedy#c-Esqueer-20241024050600-Usr_Trj-20241024035200
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johanna_Olson-Kennedy#c-Esqueer-20241024053800-96.36.47.50-20241024050800
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.

AIM-174B

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

"AIM-174 air-to-air missile" was moved without discussion to "AIM-174B." Consensus was reached RE: the removal of "air-to-air missile," but no consensus was reached regarding the addition or removal of the "B." After a no-consensus RM close (which should have brought us back to the original title, sans agreed-upon unneeded additional disambiguator), I requested the discussion be re-opened, per policy. (TO BE CLEAR; I should have, at this time, requested immediate reversion. However, I did not want to be impolite or pushy) The original closer (who found for "no consensus") was concerned they had become "too involved" in the process and requested another closer. Said closer immediately found consensus for "AIM-174B." I pressed-on to a MRV, where an additional "no consensus" (to overturn) finding was issued. The issues, as I see them, are as-follows:

WP:RMUM: The move from “AIM-174 air-to-air missile” to “AIM-174B” was conducted without discussion, and I maintain all post-move discussions have achieved "no consensus."

Burden of Proof: The onus should be on the mover of the undiscussed title to justify their change, not on others to defend the original title. I refrained from reverting the move during the MRV process out of politeness, which should not shift the burden of proof onto me.

Precedent: I am concerned with the precedent. Undiscussed moves may be brute-forced into acceptance even if "no consensus" or a very slim consensus (WP:NOTAVOTE) is found?

Argument in-favor of "AIM-174:" See Talk:AIM-174B#Requested_move_20_September_2024 for arguments in-favor and against. However, I would like to make it clear that I was the only person arguing WP. Those in-favor of "174B" were simply disagreeing with my WP arguments, but not offering their own in-support of "174B." That said, my primary WP-based argument is likely WP:CONSISTENT; ALL U.S. air-to-air-missiles use the base model as their article title. See: AIM-4 Falcon, AIM-26 Falcon, AIM-47 Falcon, AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-54 Phoenix, AIM-68 Big Q, AIM-82, AIM-95 Agile, AIM-97 Seekbat, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132, AIM-152 AAAM, AIM-260. 174"B" is unnecessary while violating consistency.

TO BE CLEAR, I am not alleging bad faith on behalf of anyone, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have been involved, particularly the RM/MRV closers that I will be naming here. I would like to make it clear that this isn't simply a case of a MRV 'not going my way.' Again, I am concernd w/ the precedent and with the onus having been shifted to me for months.

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

-Original RM/reversion discussion on article's talk page
-Post-closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer
-MRV
-Post-MRV closure discussion w/ MRV closer
-Post-MRV closure discussion w/ ORIGINAL RM closer (as-suggested by ModernDayTrilobite)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally, I would request reversion to "AIM-174." Failing that, I would request reversion to the 'true' original title, "AIM-174 air-to-air-missile" and the onus be shifted onto the individual wishing to move this article to complete an RM. Otherwise, a review of my policy argument(s) weighed against the apparent "consensus" (which I, personally, deny exists).

I strongly believe that this move violates WP. That said, I will happily accept any resolution offered, here.

Summary of dispute by Asukite

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by ModernDayTrilobite

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

AIM-174B discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by volunteer (AIM-174B)

I was about to close this request for at least two reasons, one procedural, one substantive. The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. That is procedural, and could be corrected if this were a right forum. The substantive reason is that DRN is not the forum for discussing a page titling dispute, or for discussing a matter that has been discussed via a consensus procedure such as Requested Moves or Move Review. It appears that the problem is that, first, there was a bold undiscussed move, and the filing editor disagrees with the undiscussed move. It then appears that the filing editor first filed a Requested Move to undo the move, but it resulted in No Consensus. The filing editor then filed a Move Review, and it resulted in No Consensus. So the filing editor is looking for a forum to overturn the bold undiscussed move. Is that correct? It appears that the editor who renamed the page, when there is no consensus, has a first-mover advantage.

I am instead leaving this thread open at this point to discuss what if anything the filing editor should do next. My thought is that the filing editor should ask at Village pump (policy) what the next step is. DRN is not the right forum, but I won't close this thread until we can determine what the right forum, if any, is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, that is essentially what I am asking. I realize it’s a bit convoluted, so, I’m happy to proceed to VP. Don’t need to keep it open for my sake. But I also realize that it may a bit too early to do so and it’s a weekend. Point being, though, I will not complain if you feel that the discussion is not moving anywhere and wish to close this. That said, I was under the impression that I only needed to notify the users whom I mentioned and had taken action regarding this, I apologize for the procedural error. EDIT: Oh, I just realized I didn’t even notify the users I mentioned! I am so sorry! Should I do so? Or since this is the incorrect forum should I just leave it as-is for now?Thank you for your patience, this is my first time taking things to this level. MWFwiki (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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.

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Several editors believe that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's article should not have an infobox. Several editors believe it should.

There has been a discussion where the consensus was narrowly in favor of an infobox. All attempts to restore the infobox to the article have been reverted, and attempts to engage infobox opponents in discussion have been met with silence.

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

Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov User_talk:Ian_Rose#Rimsky_Infobox User_talk:SchroCat#Rimsky_Infobox


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Well-meaning editors are trying to engage in a discussion about the issue. Several editors are not reciprocating and revert any attempts to install an infobox. The hope is that the Dispute Resolution process can engage reticent editors in an open discussion in order to create a consensus.

Summary of dispute by SchroCat

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Antniomanso

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by NipponGinko

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ian Rose

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages.
Thanks for explaining that. At the top of the article's talk page, there is a notice that says, "Seek dispute resolution if needed". When we hit an impasse, I clicked the Dispute Resolution link and followed the instructions.
If Request for Comments is the preferred method of resolving an Infobox dispute, should that header language be updated? Trumpetrep (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Trumpetrep - I have reviewed the header language, and there is no need to change it. It says to seek dispute resolution if needed. That page lists four ways of resolving content disputes and four ways of resolving conduct disputes. One of the ways of resolving content disputes is Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where we are, and another is Request for Comments. You followed the instructions, and came here, and we sometimes either advise the editor to use an RFC or set up the RFC. The header instructions are correct. You followed the instructions. Do you want me to set up the RFC for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I defer to your judgment about the best way to proceed. No one has weighed in here aside from you.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
User:Trumpetrep - The reason that no one else has responded is that you forgot to notify the other users, and I didn't tell you to notify them, because I didn't think that moderated discussion would be as useful as an RFC. I have prepared more than a hundred RFCs, so I would suggest that you ask me to prepare the RFC, but that is your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I followed the instructions I was given when I asked for the Dispute Resolution. I was told to notify the editors, and I did so immediately at the discussion page in question. That seemed like the correct way to do it. I apologize that I misunderstood the process.
When I saw your Volunteer Notes, I immediately notified all of the editors on their Talk pages. I am very grateful for your explanations. I would like to see if there is any progress with the current circumstances before requesting comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if that is appropriate. My opinion is that the question of whether there should be an infobox for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov should be resolved by an RFC. Disputes over whether articles on classical music and musicians should have infoboxes have been common, and there does not seem to be a project-wide consensus on the issue, so it is best to rely on consensus for each article determined by RFC. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on infobox disputes. If you wish to engage in discussion, please first state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that infoboxes are a contentious topic.

The article currently does not have an infobox. In order for the RFC to be informative, a draft infobox should be provided for inclusion in the RFC. So if you want an RFC on an infobox, please provide a draft infobox for inclusion in the RFC.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

Thanks again for your help with this process and for your willingness to conduct a moderated discussion. I hope I'm responding in the correct format. The infobox that was created on October 13th appears in a slightly amended form below. I streamlined the image coding and added a link to Rimsky-Korsakov's wife.

If the project in question is WikiProject Composers, it does seem that there is a "project-wide consensus" about infoboxes that is outlined here. Some composer articles also have a hidden text admonition not to add an infobox without consensus: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek consensus on this article's talk page."Trumpetrep (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nikolai Andreyevich Rimsky-Korsakov
Head of a man with dark greying hair, glasses and a long beard
Portrait of Rimsky-Korsakov in 1898 by Valentin Serov (detail)
Born(1844-03-18)March 18, 1844
Tikhvin, Tikhvinsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
DiedJune 21, 1908(1908-06-21) (aged 64)
Luga, Luzhsky Uyezd, Russian Empire
Cause of deathMyocardial infarction
Resting placeTikhvin Cemetery
NationalityRussian Empire
Alma materNaval Cadet Corps, Saint Petersburg
EraRomantic
EmployerSaint Petersburg Conservatory
Known forcomposer, maestro, musicologist, autobiographer, music professor, music theorist, university professor, military officer, librettist
Notable workScheherazade
Symphony No. 1
The Golden Cockerel
SpouseNadezhda Rimskaya-Korsakova
ChildrenAndrey Rimsky-Korsakov
Mikhail Nikolaevich Rimskiy-Korsakov
Vladimir Rimsky-Korsakov
Parents
  • Andrey Petrovich Rimskiy-Korsakov (father)
  • Sofia Vasilievna Skaryatina (mother)
RelativesVoin Rimsky-Korsakov (brother)
Signature


First statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

I have created the draft RFC for review at talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov/RFC_on_Infobox . I have reviewed the guideline on infoboxes for composers, and I would characterize it as a consensus that there is no consensus:

The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

That is what I had remembered. So this RFC will be used to arrive at consensus.

Are there any comments on the draft RFC before I move it to the article talk page and it becomes an active RFC?

Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

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.

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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?

Discussion moved from edit summaries into the user's talk page.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects is one of many on filmmakers who had films/series they were developing that ultimately never got made, or the filmmaker simply left. This is explained in the lead section of the article. @ZanderAlbatraz1145: has been including content on projects in which Guadagnino is still actively involved with. Thus, this does not align with the purpose of the article. Today, I had removed two of Guadagnino's more recent projects, citing that they were still being developed with Guadagnino on two instances. ZanderAlbatraz reverted me, opening with bad faith comments about whether myself or other editors would remember to reinclude them should they become unrealized (this is also ZanderAlbatraz employing assumption in regards to Guadagnino not realizing the project), and then finishing with uncivil remarks such as " Make sense? Doubt you'll understand" and remarking they'd just keep re-adding it, demonstrating disinterest in collaborative or constructive editing. I reverted, reasserting the purpose of the page is "unrealized projects", they proceeded to follow through with their intention to edit war.

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

I approached the editor on their talk page, see User talk:ZanderAlbatraz1145#Luca Guadagnino. Here they demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what the goal of the article was for, and refused requests for them to revert themselves. This ultimately ended with them saying to "Bite me". ZanderAlbatraz consistently engages in incivility such as this, with @Staraction: leaving them a message prior to my thread about their uncivil comments.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Given this has essentially been a 1 v 1 disagreement, looking either for third party resolution, or to see if the matter should be fielded in a bigger format for more input. Additionally, ZanderAlbatraz in my opinion should be given firmer reprimand about their conduct.

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects 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.

Breyers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Breyers is a 158 year old ice cream and frozen dessert brand owned since 1993 by Unilever. It has a fairly simple story of its American history, purchase by Unilever, products, and place among other high-performance brands. The current version includes each sentence with a verifiable, reliable source. One persistent disputant #1 has repeatedly diminished the content, such as in this version, with no constructive edits. Another disputant #2 earlier inserted this version, attempting to highlight "antifreeze" as a Breyers ingredient, while wiping out constructive sourced edits. Disputant #3 also reverted here to eliminate improvements. A fourth good-faith editor provided additional edits here. A main issue of disputants #1-3 is over a GRAS ingredient used in Breyers products 11 years ago, but not since, to make the antifreeze smear. With input in recent days, two admins on the talk page have essentially ended that claim as irrelevant to current ingredients, WP:UNDUE and having no WP:RS sources. It seems likely that disputants #1-3 will further oppose building a verifiable, accurate, sourced article. As recently as a month ago, disputant #1 reverted improvements to return to this outdated, skeletal version.

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

Talk:Breyers#Article_status,_part_3 - which is the latest attempt to discuss and build a better article. The talk page has been extensively organized to invite constructive input, but has been in dispute over the past 3 months, with disputants #1-3 actively participating to argue against building the article.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The Breyers article has 54 watchers, with 11 having visited in the past month. I have repeatedly attempted to provide objective, sourced statements to give the basic information, but appear to be the only editor doing so. The disputants will argue that my edits were "cultivated" by Unilever consultants who made reasonable edit requests, to which I responded in the History section. I have no COI. Is the current version objectively stated and verifiable to deter further disputes and reverts?

Summary of dispute by Graywalls

It has been difficult working with Zefr as I feel they're pushy and consensus is not being respected and they don't seem to be adhering to WP:AGF as they had been casting aspersions that some editors are here to "slander" or "disparage" that is up against the line of WP:NLT. "disparaging" which triggered a hinting of legal actions. They said Statements of facts supported by reliable sources do not need talk page consensus., so this seems like they have no intentions of respecting consensus. as said in here Graywalls (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NutmegCoffeeTea

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Axad12

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I had unsubscribed from the relevant threads over a fortnight ago because the OP here was clearly being very difficult and simply would not accept that consensus was against them (on a variety of issues). Having read through the developments since I unsubscribed I'm disappointed (but unsurprised) to see that that continues to be the case. I can only interpret this referral to dispute resolution as the desperate last throw of the dice of someone who should have accepted that the consensus was against them and walked away a long time ago.

Also, I do very much believe that the user was canvassed/cultivated to deal with the relevant COI edit requests in a way which undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Also that some of the allegations that the user made during the course of those threads were massively inaccurate and ill-advised. Axad12 (talk)

Summary of dispute by CNMall41

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I was gone for about a week so forgive the late response. I am not sure what to add here since this is my first DRN. I will say that the discussion has been contentious and if there is a specific question about specific content I will be glad to opine. Otherwise, I am not really interested in the back and forth .--CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Breyers discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Breyer's)

I am ready to try to conduct moderated discussion if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. Only one other editor besides the filing editor has replied, but other editors are still welcome to join the discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion.

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Each editor should state concisely what changes they want to make to the article (in which section and paragraph) that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not familiar with procedural flow so my apologies if this is not the right way to follow up. I sent reminders to others, and I would like to give it a few more days to see if they'd comment. Graywalls (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
DRN Rule A is a good outline to which I encourage and agree for the moderated discussion.
The Breyers brand story and article are relatively easy to research and describe, and it will likely not change much over time because it is managed by Unilever who intends to sell it and all the Unilever ice cream brands in 2025.
From my view as an objective Wikipedia editor mainly on science topics, the two main disputed issues are
1) using best-available recent sources to update which was an outdated skeletal version containing misinformation when I began editing in August 2024. The version discussed in this talk page topic is fair, balanced, sourced, and factual, with the one exception mentioned - propylene glycol is an irrelevant issue to discuss among the many intentional ingredients for frozen dairy desserts (no source to indicate it ever applied to original ice cream products);
and 2) the persistent reintroduction (by disputants #1-3) of the slur term "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient in Breyers products. Propylene glycol - a common, safe, approved food ingredient not used in Breyers products since 2013, so a question of why it is such a sensitive, persistently-disputed issue raises concern over what motivations are behind the months-long dispute, including just yesterday here.
On the Breyers talk page, I have raised discussion using WP:AGE MATTERS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:REL about why the propylene glycol ingredient deserves to be mentioned at all, but there have been no replies to advance the discussion. Zefr (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The consensus was clearly against you there, and will continue to be against you here.
You cannot just present argument after argument in the discussion at the talkpage (attracting only disagreement and no support) and then argue here that there have been no replies. That is what tends to happen when editors remorselessly try to wear down everyone else's resistance and attention.
To then bring the issues here is frankly an abuse of process in relation to discussions where there was a clear consensus against you weeks ago.
WP:CONSENSUS is the way to resolve disputes, not forum shopping. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You are one of 3 editors who tried to slander and WP:SPAMBAIT the article with the word "antifreeze" as a relevant ingredient. 3 editors out of only 11 who have visited this page in the last month are not a consensus, especially when two admins (Cullen328 and BD2412) dismissed the propylene glycol-antifreeze issue on the talk page.
I suggest you review WP:CON, which contains tendentious editing, WP:TE - the correct description for the smearing of the article by you, Graywalls, and NutmegCoffeeTea with irrelevant content: "Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view." The 3 of you are skewed/non-neutral to attempt describing a consumer brand with a slanderous term, while not offering a single constructive edit with recent verifiable sources over the last 6 months of article history. Zefr (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Apologies but I have no time for your continual allegations and wikilawyering. That there was a clear consensus against you at the talk page is self-evident, and admins do not get some kind of supervote.
Frankly, the nature of the allegations you made at the talk page were a clear breach of WP:AGF and the post above doubles down on that kind of rhetoric. All that I have personally done on that article is reinstate (some time ago now) the previous established version because there was no consensus for the changes you had made. Accusing me of slander, smearing, tendentious editing and spambait is quite laughable (and is on top of your previous allegations of tagteaming, being canvassed to attend when I was already in the conversation, etc, etc.).
If your only interest here is in continuing to attack those who disagree with you, what is the point of this exercise? That kind of behaviour is never the way to "win" an argument, and is about as far from dispute resolution as can be imagined.
Also, why are you selectively canvassing previous talkpage contributors in your post above? What about also pinging the full list of contributors who disagreed with you but who weren't invited to this discussion? Axad12 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You chose to be involved in resolving the dispute. You could have remained silent, but here you are attacking behavior and not observing the first rule of DRN: This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Zefr (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh come on, I'm perfectly allowed to defend myself from nonsense allegations - here or anywhere else on Wikipedia.
And in relation to your canvassing above, here is evidence of the additional editors who disagreed with the removal of reference to Propylene Glycol. I'm not going to mention them as I don't canvass, but here are the relevant diffs to prove that the editors exist:
The editor who turned down (here [3]) the original COI edit request to remove mention of Propylene Glycol from the article back in August. The same editor reiterated their position here [4] on 9 Nov. (The initial opposition clearly demonstrates that there was no consensus for removal when the COI editor repeated their request and canvassed their cultivated editor (Zefr) to approve it.)
The editor who disagreed [5] with Zefr’s subsequent removal of mention of Propylene Glycol
The editor who stated [6] that Zefr’s proposal amounted to promotion.
Add those voices to the 3 which you choose to acknowledge and there is the evidence to demonstrate that there has always been a clear consensus against you. Axad12 (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no reasonable support for the sources applying to propylene glycol or the "antifreeze" slur, shown partly by this RSN discussion.
DRN is intended to work on content and source. The current article has a statement challenged for its relevance in this discussion: "A 2013 book indicated that some flavors of Breyer's ice cream contained propylene glycol as an additive to make ice cream easier to scoop." Why is this relevant per WP:REL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS?
What content and sources do you propose to use? Zefr (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Given your rather transparent moving of the goalposts I assume that you accept that your earlier post was canvassing and an attempt to distort consensus here?
Also I'd suggest you withdraw the various groundless allegations that you've made against me above, for simply reverting an edit for which there was no talkpage consensus.
I'm more than happy to participate in dispute resolution, but not in an environment which you have soured with your continued personal attacks and recent canvassing post. Axad12 (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, the idea that your point of view is borne out by the two discussions that you link to seems quite unfounded. As I have stated, there has always been a consensus for inclusion of the Propylene Glycol mention. To be honest it is pushing the envelope to even suggest that there is a dispute here that needs resolving.
For the last month you have been bludgeoning to keep the discussion alive (way beyond its natural lifespan) in the optimistic hope that you'd find enough people to agree with you to overturn the obvious consensus. When that didn't happen you brought the 'dispute' here, presumably in the hope of finding support which you didn't get at the talkpage or at RSN.
The whole thing is an abuse of process.
It's very disappointing that this is being done in the name of implementing a COI edit request which was a repeat of one which was quite rightly turned down back in August by another editor. The COI editor then repeatedly canvassed you to respond to various subsequent trivial edit requests and then repeated the one that had been declined and asked you to implement it. You should have been aware that there was no consensus in favour of it because it had already been turned down. Ever since then it has just been continual argumentation prompted by one individual who discounts everyone else's opinion. Axad12 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
You have strayed from the purpose here to resolve a dispute over content and sources. As it stands today, every sentence in the Breyers article (except for the propylene glycol issue) is verified by a reliable source. None of the disputants #1-3 has made new constructive edits, added new reliable sources or challenged the facts and existing sources.
WP:CON occurs "through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Such policies include WP:V and underlying WP:RS. Without verifiability and a reliable source, a sense of consensus among a couple of users wanting to emphasize propylene glycol doesn't hold.
The issue about propylene glycol as a minor modification additive (one among 14 ingredients in a single dessert) in 2013 doesn't pass WP:V. It fails because a) it is a questionable source (an unscientific book about "banishing belly fat"), b) it is self-published by an author with no expertise in food manufacturing, c) it is an old source outdated by 12 years with no relevance to current product ingredients or food manufacturing, d) it is out of context about an article describing a brand, Breyers, and e) it has no relevance to the overall article and is too minor to mention, WP:UNDUE.
To help the process, please address these policy concerns as they apply to the 2013 propylene glycol issue. It would also be useful to offer text and a source that would re-address propylene glycol if applicable and relevant to a Breyers product in 2024. Zefr (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I continue to believe that there are many worrying elements to the history of this dispute, and in the way it was brought here, and (contrary to your suggestion above) it is entirely valid to air those concerns here. Namely: (a) whether there is an actual dispute here and not just one individual continually trying to push a POV contrary to talkpage consensus, (b) obvious canvassing by you, and (c) the COI element to the talk page history.
You are continuing to try to plough on with your own narrative and disregard the concerns of other users, which has been a regrettable element to these discussions from early November onwards.
Furthermore I'm not sure how you square accusing me of diverging from a content discussion with the fact that you made a number of entirely uncalled for and intemperate personal attacks against myself and others earlier in this thread (including the very serious accusation of slander, which you must surely retract).
As for the other points that you raise above, those have all been dealt with by other users in the relevant talk page discussion (quite possibly on multiple occasions). Axad12 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots of words, no focus. You're confused about canvassing - I haven't asked anyone to come here, but rather mentioned talk page discussants. To assist the moderator and clarify what is disputed: 1) what in the existing article would you change and why? 2) how would you word a revision about propylene glycol (relevant link for use as a food ingredient), and what current reliable source would apply? Zefr (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Breyer's)

First statement by possible moderator (Breyer's)

Please reread DRN Rule A. Your attention is called to sections A.3, Comment on content, not contributors, and A.4, no back-and-forth discussion. Most of the previous discussion has been collapsed. We will start over. Please state whether you agree to DRN Rule A. Then state what article content you want to change, or what article content you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If you can't state what you want in terms of changes to the article, maybe you haven't been focusing on article content. If you want to talk about editor conduct, you should first read the boomerang essay, and may then report the conduct issue at WP:ANI, but we should be trying to improve the encyclopedia, and so should be trying to concentrate on article content. The objective of this noticeboard is to resolve disputes by focusing on content, which often permits the conduct issue to subside.

Are there any questions? Please state them below. If there are no questions, please either agree to DRN Rule A and state what the content issues are, or state that you do not agree to the rules, or say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I have a question.
I am unfamiliar with this noticeboard and I wish to ask a purely procedural question which does not relate to editor conduct. I had previously read the notes at the top of the noticeboard but I did not see the point addressed.
In the dispute under discussion here there has already been a month's worth of talk page discussion where the OP is clearly in a small minority. There has never been anything even vaguely close to a consensus in favour of what they are trying to implement and there is a strong consensus (consisting of at least 6 editors) against implementation. Therefore the pre-existing version of the relevant part of the article continues to prevail. To the best of my knowledge that overall state of affairs is entirely standard when it comes to the resolution of talk page content discussions and is entirely in accordance with the relevant policies and guidelines.
Where a single editor has found little support for their position at the talk page, and where the discussion has effectively run its course, having had input from a good range of contributors and a clear consensus has emerged (albeit spread rather widely across a month's worth of comments), I am very surprised that an editor has recourse to this process, which I assume is intended for the resolution of issues which remain meaningfully in dispute (following adequate talk page discussion). As far as I can see that is very much not the case here.
The relevant talk page discussions are this thread [7] and then all of the material from this thread [8] downwards to the foot of the talk page. Any objective reading of the relevant material will support the version of events I have presented above.
I would thus be grateful for some chapter and verse on whether this referral to dispute resolution is in accordance with the intended purpose of this noticeboard.
I'm perfectly open to the idea that I may be mistaken in my feelings on this question but hopefully it will be accepted that it is a good faith question with relevance to the overall discussion. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello Robert, a response to the above post would be appreciated. You've asked twice now if there are any questions about the process - and the post above does present such a question. I'd be very grateful for your input here - if only because nobody seems to be prepared to engage with the OP's point of view until the issue of the validity of this overall thread is settled. Axad12 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


First statements by editors (Breyers)

I agree to DRN Rule A.

1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each statement verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). For the Consumer concerns and feedback section, the first two sentences should be moved to History, and the last two sentences should be deleted. Otherwise, the article is a factual, sourced stub just as it should be, and should not be changed unless sources within the last 5 years are applied as relevant.

2) the discussion about propylene glycol (link for use as a GRAS food ingredient) had no relevance in 2013 and has none now. Accordingly, propylene glycol should not be mentioned in the article. Zefr (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

First statement by Graywalls

Breyer's made "natural" a selling point for a long time and the 2013 reformulation is a big deal. The fact propylene glycol is contained was covered in published sources should not be ignored and per rough talk page consensus, some inclusion is absolutely warranted. The extensive boastful fluff though, should be trimmed. Graywalls (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by possible moderator (Breyer's)

I will try to answer what Axad12 describes as a purely procedural question. Now that they have clarified that they are not asking about conduct, I will try to answer.

It appears that Axad12 is saying that this is a one-against-many content dispute. I am otherwise not entirely sure what the question is. Maybe they are asking whether they are required to take part in this discussion. Participation in DRN is voluntary, regardless of whether there is a rough consensus in one direction or another or not. So they are not required to take part in discussion here, and would not be required to take part, regardless of any previous proceedings. Perhaps they are asking what will happen if they do not participate in DRN. In that case, I will close this case as declined. Then discussion should resume on the article talk page, and normal editing can resume. Edit-warring is not permitted. See the Wikipedia policy on consensus.

Sometimes a question is easier to answer when it is not accompanied by a long discussion. Was that the question that was being asked, or was something else being asked? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Robert, the question was whether the OP has recourse to this process when lengthy multi-user talk page discussion has already established that there is a strong consensus contrary to what they are trying to implement.
My concern was that it seemed unfair to expect users to rehash the same discussion here, but this was based on the idea that if no one could be bothered to do so the OP would win the day (unopposed).
However, you appear to be saying that if no one engages further then the OP's request will be declined, which would seem to me to be an entirely correct and appropriate outcome.
Thank you for your clarification. Hopefully I have understood you correctly, if not please set me straight.
Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Breyer's)

The absence of discussion and refusal to collaborate here on the disputed content can be interpreted as the disputants having no argument to justify mentioning propylene glycol. There is no consensus when there is no verifiable reliable source for why propylene glycol is sufficiently an important ingredient that it should be mentioned for manufacturing frozen desserts (it was never applied for making ice cream).

The article has no such verifiable, reliable source supporting any concerns about the widely-accepted safety of propylene glycol in frozen dessert manufacturing.

1) the existing article is concise and factual, with each sentence verified by a reliable source (except for propylene glycol). No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to improve the article. Accordingly, it is presumed acceptable as is.

2) the only applicable information about propylene glycol is this: it is and has been since 1982 a common, safe, regulated GRAS food ingredient approved in many countries, with no safety concerns or relevance to Breyers products in 2013 or now. It is only a formulation ingredient for texture control, and need not be mentioned as having relevance to the overall article on the brand. No discussants disputed or collaborated on this point to make the article clearer or better sourced.

As noted on the DRN FAQ: Wikipedia only works when editors collaborate to form a consensus. Discussion is as important in the editing process as editing itself. While participation is not a requirement at DR/N, refusing participation can be perceived as a refusal to collaborate, and is not conducive to consensus-building.

As no other discussants made attempts to collaborate on the above two conclusions, I accept that the discussion can resume on the article talk page, and the existing content and sources apply until further discussion.

I recommend the moderator close this discussion. Zefr (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

IP address 155.69.190.63 claimed that Johor Bahru is the second-highest city in Malaysia for skyscrapers over 200 metres, while most skyscraper-related articles define a skyscraper as 150 meters. Talk page discussions on the arbritrary nature of the 200-metre benchmark are deadlocked.

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

User talk:LivinAWestLife

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The discussion being deadlocked, it is hoped that a consensus can be built from more participation by editors, especially from WikiProject Skyscrapers, and others with knowledge on skyscraper definitions.

Summary of dispute by 155.69.190.63

<I think I have written enough about the main argument in the main talk page, but seems like the complainer (which has been scolded by various admins in ANI threads) still do not understand what is the main point of argument for this issue. The title for the thread is already wrong in the first place, it is not about which city has taller skyline/higher city (which is very subjective from person to person). Instead, what I have argued is the number of 200m+ buildings ONLY, not about which city has taller/more beautiful skyline. And 200m is not even a benchmark, that's your own opinion or prejudice, not mine. Don't force other editors to accept what appears to be your own thoughts. None of the skyscraper pages have explicitly mentioned 150m is the ONE AND ONLY standard, even Dubai uses 180m. I believe the complainer still do not know what is going on there. No one is interested to talk about which city has taller skyline.

Side note to the complainer, I realise that you have arbitrarily put in an extra sentence in Penang's page saying Penang is the so-called second tallest city in Malaysia, even though this discussion has not been resolved. And another editor familiar with skyscrapers have already mentioned that this sentence is actually nebulous. I am going to lodge a new talk page and complaint very soon so that we can discuss about that particular sentence in Penang's page, a very subjective claim and without any substantiated evidences, what does it even mean to be second tallest city in the first place? I am going to create new thread. Please wait for me.

Summary of dispute by 155.69.184.1

For everyone's attention, the page is List of tallest buildings in George Town, Penang. None of the any city's Wiki skyscraper page has even mentioned about they being the tallest/second tallest city in their nation. Penang is the only page to do so (The complainer has quietly added that extra sentence after this dispute which I am going to create new talk page soon). What does it mean to be the tallest city? As a reader, it really confused me the meaning behind this term. If you look at the page for Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei, Osaka, Kaohsiung, Jakarta, Surabaya, Melbourne, none of these cities even mentioned about they being the tallest/second/third tallest city in their nation as this is very subjective and nebulous, every person has different views about a tall city or which city has better skyline. Those pages only mentioned the numbers of 150m/200m buildings and the editors leave it to the readers to formtheir opinions on which city has taller/better skyline. It is really weird. And where does the source even come from? A city with 30 blocks of 150m buildings is claimed to be a taller city than another city with 28 blocks of 250m buildings? This is what exactly happening in Penang's page, none of other similar Wiki pages did the same thing and this made the Penang's page content look like an advertisement or promotion. Isn't it very subjective according to different person so who has the right to define which city has taller/better skyline? And especially you added this sentence before dispute resolved?

List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru 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.

Ustad Ahmad_Lahori

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

people keep attributing Ahmad Lahori as the chief architect of the taj mahal and of many other projects when no such records exist for him beyond things written in a hagiography, no official records or records by others match (that name others)beyond him having worked at the foundation of the red fort, yet there's an entire mythology written up about him (much was removed, but more still needs to be edited out) even the potrait isnt him,

i did some research and put in some effort to write a refutation of his at the talk page using the best possible sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori titled "Myths about ustad ahmad lahori's role as the chief architect of shahjahan"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ustad_Ahmad_Lahori

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

clear out the amateur sources and repeating myths, alert the reader when its quoting hagiography by his son to let them know the source of the rumors, let the reader know of mughal tradition and why despite it records dont match the hagiography and let them know who according to tradition was attributed as the supreme architect (see the talk page as i talk about it).

Ustad Ahmad_Lahori discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Ditto. I have pointed them towards Teahouse for further discussions. No disputes here, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ustad Ahmad Lahori)

I don't know if there is a content dispute, but the way to find out whether there is a content dispute is to ask my usual opening question. First, the editors are asked to read DRN Rule D, and to read the ArbCom ruling that India and Pakistan are a contentious topic. Then please answer the usual opening question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. If there is a content dispute, please state what part of the article you want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Please also agree that you accept the ground rules, and that you acknowledge that Ustad Ahmad Lahori and the Taj Mahal are a contentious topic because they are about the history of India. If there is a content dispute, we can continue with moderated discussion. If the originator was merely stating a general objective, then normal discussion can continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Ustad Ahmad Lahori)

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.

Elizabeth Mynatt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This refers to an academic's personal page - dean of the college of computing at Northeastern. There is on editor who is adding content to that is unsubstantiated and not objective. I've asked this editor to discuss a compromise on the talk page, but they keep trying to talk about it in other spaces which I find inappropriate. This person has found me on another platform and try to start a conversation about it there. Several other editors have also reversed the aspects that are unsubstantiated, so I thought it best to submit through this channel as the compromise I presented was completely ignored. In the latest communication from user No Oath, i was called a biased hack and accused of not "discussing" the issue. However, I feel that I am as I am using the Talk page as we are supposed to.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Mynatt


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be helpful to have an objective third party review. In the talk page, i have asked the editor if there is a common ground that can be reached and offered a potential solution to which I have been told that they will continue to revert back any changes until they (No Oath) are banned. If I am being unreasonable, I am happy to accept that but feel that based on the communication from this editor, there is a personal issue at play that shouldn't play out on this platform.

Summary of dispute by No Oath

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by LizLKC

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Elizabeth Mynatt 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.

Talk:Alba Party

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.


I asked for a apology, and I was then told I had made comparisions to David Icke multiple times, which was surely not a fair remark, as all I had said was you should always substantiate sources, as for example you would never just source David Icke, with no attempt to substantiate his claims, for some reason, I think unfairly the editor claimed I was comparing editors to David Icke, which was not at all the case. I stated this was not what I was doing, and made sure that was known, then was told I had made multiple comparaisons to David Icke, which was not true at all, I had just explained the example, and even took it back. I am making a complaint as of the insinuation, unfairly that I was making multiple comparisons to David Icke, which sounds to me like a aggressive attempt to dismiss my remarks, and surely the statement multiple in itself was a exaggeration which kind of shows up that this was a personal attack on me. Making it sound like I was constantly comparing people to David Icke, when all I had done was said you should source material, and then took back the David Icke example, and then was told I was making Multiple comparsions to him, which I was not. This is clearly either a deliberate or accident misconstruing of what I said. And I see it as a personal attack, and attempt to dismiss me, deserving of banning this editor, from being a editor, as it was a offensive dismissive remark, that was clearly not in keeping with the situiation. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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 was disagreeing with some interpretation's on the Alba Party, I was saying how there has been a lack oiation of sources. I then made a example where I said for example you would never just pick sources from the internet from say random people, without substantiating them. I have a example that you should not, for example you would not take David Icke as a example, unsubtantiated To this I was told I was comparing Whikipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, To this I insisted I was not comparing any wikipedia editors to Holocuast deniers, and asked for a apologydid not say David Icke was a Holocaust denier, I did not sat any wikipedia editors were like dVAID iCKE OR hOLOCAUST DENIERS. tO THIS i WAS TOLD i HAD REFERENCED dAVID iCKE MULIPLE TIMES BY COMPARISION in the article, which is not true, I referenced him once then took it back. I see this as a insult, as I never directly compared anybody to David Icke.

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

I have asked fror a pology and now my comments are being deleted and blocked and there is a general attitude of trying to delete what I have said.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Tell AntiDionysius, that this is aggressive behaviour, and to stop such aggressive activity. That sources do need to be substantiated and it is not fair to look for reasons to claim you have been a victim of a personal attack, and to claim someone is calling them a holocaust deiner when they have never done such a thing.

Summary of dispute by AntiDionysius

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Alba Party 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.

It's Coming (film), Draft:The Misguided

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Multiple issues require resolution: 1. Unwarranted removal of properly sourced Reception section from It's Coming (film) 2. Repeated addition of unsupported tags (COI, paid editing, promotional content) 3. Pattern of coordinated targeting including: 

  - Removal of sourced content
  - Addition of tags without discussion
  - Accusations of paid editing/COI without evidence
  - Claims of AI use and "forum shopping"

Content is based entirely on reliable sources (Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, Film Threat). Limited contact for fact verification has been mischaracterized as COI. Properly sourced content is being removed without specific policy-based concerns.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Request neutral review and mediation to: 1. Restoration of policy-compliant content, constructive collaboration 2. Remove incorrect paid, COI/promotional tags 3. Address pattern of coordinated personal targeting and attacks 4. Ensure fair treatment of properly sourced content regardless of subject matter

Looking for constructive resolution based on Wikipedia policies rather than assumptions about contributors.

Summary of dispute by Axad12

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Cullen328

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Theroadislong

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

It's Coming (film), Draft:The Misguided 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.

Kamaria Ahir

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute revolves around the use of Raj-era sources, specifically K.S. Singh’s "Anthropological Survey of India," in the article on "Kamaria Ahir." One editor, Nlkyair012, is advocating for the removal of these sources, arguing that they are outdated and unreliable. However, these historical sources, particularly those from the British Raj, are still cited in reputable modern academic works as valuable historical references for caste dynamics and structures. The issue also includes the inclusion of living people's names without proper self-identification, which violates Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy (BLP). The goal of this dispute resolution is to determine whether the Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh’s work should be retained or replaced, and to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

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

[[9]]

[[10]]

["Kamaria_Ahir"_Article]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute can be resolved by carefully reviewing the reliability of Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh's work, considering modern academic citations that rely on these sources, and determining whether they meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Additionally, we can remove any names of living people to comply with the BLP policy while maintaining the historical and sociological content that is well-sourced. Collaboration on improving the article is key, and I suggest that experts in anthropology or caste studies provide input on the appropriateness of these sources for this article.

The current dispute is about the inclusion of Raj-era sources, particularly from the British colonial period, in the article "[Kamaria Ahir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamaria_Ahir)." I believe these sources are valuable for understanding the historical context of caste structures in India, despite their age. While I acknowledge that [WP:AGEMATTERS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Age_matters) advises caution with older sources, it does not outright prohibit their use, especially when they provide unique historical insights that modern works may lack. Raj-era ethnographic works were written by government officials and are often cited in contemporary research for their firsthand observations, making them relevant in understanding caste dynamics.

A central issue in this dispute is the use of K.S. Singh’s "[Anthropological Survey of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological_Survey_of_India)" (ASI), which I have cited in the article. The ASI, although created under government supervision, is a significant academic resource that continues to be referenced in Indian academia. While some may question its modern reliability, it remains an authoritative source, and dismissing it entirely without further scrutiny undermines its contribution to the topic. As per [WP:SCHOLARSHIP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Scholarship), high-quality academic sources are essential, but older sources like K.S. Singh’s are still valid when used in conjunction with modern studies to provide a complete view of the topic.

I also understand concerns related to [WP:BLP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), particularly regarding the inclusion of living people's names in caste articles. If specific names are a violation of [WP:BLPCAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP_categories), I agree they should be removed. However, this does not justify removing the entire article or historical context that is verifiable and supported by well-established sources. The article provides valuable historical and sociological context that should not be discarded simply due to concerns over individual names.

The sources I have used are critical to the article’s depth and accuracy. While there are concerns over the accessibility and page numbers of some sources, I am willing to work to improve verifiability, such as by adding missing page numbers or citing additional resources. According to [WP:V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and [WP:RS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), I aim to improve the article's citation standards, but my main goal is to maintain the article’s historical integrity while complying with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and reliability.

[Ratnahastin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ratnahastin) has raised concerns about the reliability and relevance of these sources, particularly due to their age. However, rather than removing content entirely, I propose that we retain these sources while improving the article’s clarity and citation standards. The article can be collaboratively improved to ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines while preserving the depth of the subject matter.

Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin

The OP does not really understand the purpose of WP:DR. The proper venue for this dispute was WP:RSN. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I’d appreciate if we could focus on constructive dialogue rather than dismissing my contributions as AI-generated or repetitive. I’ve put in considerable effort into researching and explaining my points here and on RSN, as you’ve acknowledged.
While RSN focuses strictly on source reliability, this discussion at DRN is broader—it’s about how content sourced from historical documents can be meaningfully incorporated into the article without violating Wikipedia’s guidelines like WP:BLP or WP:GSCASTE.
I’d also like to emphasize that I’m not against incorporating modern tertiary sources. In fact, I’ve already proposed balancing the article with both historical and modern perspectives to ensure neutrality and depth. I am also willing to address verifiability concerns by adding specific page numbers or additional citations.
Accusing me of forum shopping is inaccurate—I brought the matter to RSN to address the reliability of specific sources, and to DRN to resolve content disputes that go beyond just reliability. These are distinct yet connected aspects of the same issue.
I hope we can focus on resolving the content dispute collaboratively rather than resorting to unproductive allegations. I look forward to hearing constructive feedback from DRN volunteers or other editors like @Fylingfotberserk and @Ekdalian, whom you’ve pinged. Nlkyair012 05:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Kamaria Ahir discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Thank you for your note. I acknowledge that source reliability is a critical aspect of this dispute, and as you mentioned, I have already brought up this matter on the Reliable Source Noticeboard (RSN) here to evaluate the specific sources in question.
However, this dispute at DRN extends beyond just the reliability of sources. It involves a broader disagreement over how content from historical sources should be incorporated into the article while balancing compliance with Wikipedia's policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.
Here at DRN, I am seeking resolution on whether the historical context provided by these sources can be retained while ensuring the article aligns with community standards. This involves determining whether to refine, supplement, or restructure the article, rather than removing entire sections or sources outright.
I appreciate your efforts and hope this clarifies why this discussion is taking place here in addition to RSN. If DRN volunteers feel this still doesn’t meet the scope of this forum, I’d appreciate guidance on next steps. Nlkyair012 05:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 Bangladesh Premier League

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I’ve been trying to add factual, sourced information to the 2025 Bangladesh Premier League article, but my edits are being reverted without explanation by another editor who hasn’t engaged in discussion despite multiple attempts. I’d like neutral input to resolve whether this edit complies with Wikipedia’s policies.

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

I have tried to resolve the dispute by initiating discussions at the following locations:

Talk:2025 Bangladesh Premier League User talk:103.59.179.16 Despite these efforts, the other editor has not engaged in meaningful dialogue.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate input from neutral editors to determine whether my edit complies with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and relevance. A third-party perspective can help decide whether the reverted information should remain in the article or if adjustments are necessary to address any concerns. Additionally, guidance on how to handle the lack of engagement from the other editor would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by 103.59.179.16

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The editor 103.59.179.16 has reverted my edits to the article multiple times without providing an explanation for the reversions. Despite my attempts to engage in discussions on their user talk page and the article talk page, they have not responded. The disputed content includes factual information about the 2025 Bangladesh Premier League, which is supported by a reliable, verifiable source. The other editor has not presented any concerns regarding the reliability or relevance of the information, nor have they participated in the discussion to clarify their reasons for the reverts.

2025 Bangladesh Premier League 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.

Old Government House, Parramatta

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Is a dispute regarding using non-copyright material used within the article Old Government House, Parramatta that extends to >90% of material from another website.


The User who posted much of this material contends that "The material is CC-BY licensed, as stated in the edit summary and correctly attributed, which is, and has always been, usable on Wikipedia, and was added as part of a massive project by a number of Australian editors to import quality CC-BY content from a number of heritage sources."


I think that this material should be placed subject under WP:EL/ External Links, and follow the clearly defined rules of WP:COPYPASTE/ Copying text from other sources, WP:Plagiarism & WP:PARAPHRASE guidelines.


Ignoring the numerous uncivil issues appearing on the Talkpage, the view is using material like this is legalistically quite correct regarding use of non-copyright material, but in my opinion, it exceed any 'fair use' of material in which it is almost completely paraphrased and could even be considered as plagiarism.

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

Talk:Old Government House, Parramatta#This is a mess

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Could someone clarify and advise how and to what extent such external material can be used in Wikipedia pages?

Knowing this would be able to improve the page and remove some of the text it doesn't seem relevant.

Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Old Government House, Parramatta discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Old Government House)

I am ready to act as the moderator in this dispute. Firstly, I would like to ask the editors to read Wikipedia:DRN Rule B and state their acceptance of it. This ruleset allows back-and-forth discussion, however, I would like to remind you to stay civil. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article; we won't be discussing conduct issues.

It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain. Is this correct? I would like to ask Itchycoocoo what changes do you want exactly and why? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what "dispute" exist here – this user hasn't even attempted to edit the article other than slapping a copyvio tag on it, and no one has tried to stop them from editing. I have even explicitly invited the user to be bold and edit the article, which they haven't done. Itchycoocoo seems to believe the article is a copyright violation and/or plagiarism, despite three users (myself, The Drover's Wife, and Wizardman) explaining that it is fine to add open-licence text to Wikipedia. The editor is welcome to take their issue to a different noticeboard such as Wikipedia:Copyright problems but they will get the same answer. Otherwise, again, they are free to make whatever edits they want to the article. I T B F 📢 02:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Old Government House)

Firstly, thank you for taking this issue up.

I do accept Wikipedia DRN Rule B, and will avoid unnecessary interaction with the other editor.

You state "It is my understanding that The Drover's Wife wants the current state of the article to remain." I don't think that is the case, and as others are pointed out, there are many irrelevant statements relating to the subject, which can be used elsewhere or in other pages.

I will be very happy to do such culling.

But the issue is about using non-copyright text 'free use' to such an extent that it is place there near its entirety. It appears that any material that is deemed free use without copyright under CC – BY licenses can be used within Wikipedia pages. This is acknowledged.

However, elsewhere under paraphrase, copypaste, and plagiarism, it suggests that the amount of text using whole webpages should not extensively used by Wikipedia editors. e.g. According to WP:Copypaste "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism."

I think the issue is a grey area. Using portions of an external webpage, whether a copyright or not, should be adopted sparingly and not cart blanch as example by this article.

In my opinion, the entire adopt the text should be scrapped, and should be written by a Wikipedia editor, but still extracting some of the CC – BY material either in quotes, as suggested in Close paraphrasing "With the exceptions of short quotations from copyright text, and text copied from a free source without a copyright, text from other sources may not be copied into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and constitutes plagiarism."

Q: My question to resolve this dispute is how much of CC – BY license usage of another site can be used in a Wikipedia page? Is 100% acceptable, say 50%, 20%, or maybe just 5%?

If it is 100% acceptable, then the pasting of all of this material is acceptable to Wikipedia standards. However, looking at the other Wikipedia policies, it seems to me that significant section taken from any website is needed, really should be placed in quotation marks, and used to support statements made in secondary sources written by Users.

The alternative is to just place it as a simple external link, for readers who want to read the more extensive knowledge in more detail.

Based on the discussion and debate, if I do do this, I fear that it will simply be reverted to the original text in the alternate website. I would also like to add some new information that is occurred in the last year or two, has there been significant developments in the building and its grounds. Using the non-copyright source means it will have to be modified fairly severely and still read as if it were encyclopaedic.

Perhaps the other editor in this dispute may have some useful suggestions on improving this article with these thoughts in mind. They are clearly an experienced editor, so any ideas would be welcome.

Thanks. Itchycoocoo (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Wikipedia:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included. 2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus. 3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved.

Summary of dispute by BMWF

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94

The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:

1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.

2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold.

3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".

4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".

5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.

In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)

I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)

I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to DRN Rule A and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to DRN Rule A. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Dragon Age)

Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about review bombing, so that we can read a description of the review bombing.

I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement.

I don't understand what the synthesis issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the synthesis issue is. So please state more specifically what the synthesis issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a synthesis issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it.

Please provide your rewritten sections.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Dragon Age)

Proposed text:

Lead

Dragon Age: The Veilguard released for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on October 31, 2024. After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the Golden Joystick Awards and Innovation in Accessibility at The Game Awards.

Reception

¶1 Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions according to the review aggregator website Metacritic.[1] OpenCritic determined that 68% of critics recommended the game.[2] Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews.[3][4][5]

Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.

¶2 Hayes Madsen of Rolling Stone called Veilguard a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset".[6] Leana Hafer for IGN similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character".[7] Andy Bickerton of NPR viewed the game as a "well-executed action RPG". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of Veilguard's near-decade of troubled production".[8] Lauren Morton of PC Gamer thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than RPG at moments".[9]

¶3 Critics were mixed on the game's story. Matt Purslow from IGN thought that Veilguard was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric.[10] Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in Veilguard, describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions".[11] She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas.[11] Hafer opined that Veilguard has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas.[7] Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey.[6] Ash Parrish of The Verge appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice".[12] Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative,[13][6][11][9][14] with some finding major decisions "few and far between".[11][6]

The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.

¶4 Madsen praised Veilguard for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot".[6] Todd Harper of Polygon emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways".[15] Kazuma Hashimoto of Them commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions.[14] Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character.[7] Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in Veilguard, highlighting that unlike previous Dragon Age games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path.[12] Conversely, Oliver Brandt of Sports Illustrated viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other Dragon Age games.[16] Harvey Randall of PC Gamer highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity.[17] Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations,[18] noting that "good people don't make great characters".[9] She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.[18]

¶5 Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters.[16][19][20][21][22][23] Alyssa Mora of IGN emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless".[19] Both Robin Bea of Inverse and Brandt commended Taash's story arc,[16][20] with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", Vanguard "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary".[16] Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in Veilguard in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a coming out narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character".[20] Stacey Henley of TheGamer appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to Inquisition's Krem, though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking".[21] Randall was more critical, noting how Veilguard "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context".[17] They found the lack of a fictional etymology connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".[17]

¶6 Critics enjoyed Veilguard's graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat. Bickerton felt that Veilguard's strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish".[8] He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players.[8] Hetfeld viewed Veilguard's combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games.[11] Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat.[7] Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars".[12] Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than Inquisition and the Mass Effect games.[15] Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor",[7] and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous".[15] Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design".[13] Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on Inquisition's "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points".[8] Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of Veilguard. She found it was better off for removing Inquisition's "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".[9]

References

  1. ^ "Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews)". Metacritic. Retrieved December 4, 2024.
  2. ^ "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews". OpenCritic. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
  3. ^ "Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing". Eurogamer.net. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
  4. ^ "Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say". PCGamesN. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
  5. ^ Watson, Philip (2024-11-05). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response". CGMagazine. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
  6. ^ a b c d e Madsen, Hayes (2024-10-28). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
  7. ^ a b c d e Hafer, Leana (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review". IGN. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
  8. ^ a b c d Bickerton, Andy (October 28, 2024). "Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game". NPR. Retrieved November 29, 2024.
  9. ^ a b c d Morton, Lauren (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review". PC Gamer. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  10. ^ Purslow, Matt (November 9, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself". IGN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
  11. ^ a b c d e Hetfeld, Malindy (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game". The Guardian. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
  12. ^ a b c Parrish, Ash (2024-11-28). "The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  13. ^ a b Parrish, Ash (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  14. ^ a b Hashimoto, Kazuma (2024-10-28). "I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle". Them. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  15. ^ a b c Harper, Todd (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
  16. ^ a b c d Brandt, Oliver (2024-10-31). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  17. ^ a b c Randall, Harvey (2024-11-13). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  18. ^ a b Morton, Lauren (2024-11-15). "The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  19. ^ a b Mora, Alyssa (September 19, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted". IGN. Retrieved November 30, 2024.
  20. ^ a b c Bea, Robin (2024-11-06). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed". Inverse. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  21. ^ a b Henley, Stacey (2024-11-06). "Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary'". TheGamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  22. ^ Puc, Samantha (2024-11-03). "This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
  23. ^ Marshall, Cass (2024-11-01). "How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Dragon Age)

The two editors who have responded to my request to provide a draft of changes to the article are in agreement on revised language. The other editor has not commented because they have not edited in the past week. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow the edits for which there is a rough local consensus to be made. If there is no objection to the edits within a few days, I will close this case as resolved. If there is any objection, we will resume discussion, but will leave the revised edits in place.

Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the draft. Just to confirm, I should go ahead and implement the above in the article? Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Dragon Age)

Fourth statement by moderator (Dragon Age)

Yes. Make the agreed-on changes. If they are reverted, follow my instructions above. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Dragon Age)

 Done per above instructions (see edit). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This occurred last month and only the 2024 segment and prior to that, there are numerous editors who improved its consistencies by giving only brief information. However, Globallycz come around November after joining Wikipedia in September" and then changed back to the previous standard (like stating age name, which is not a requirement, and "known as the <name of case> where case is instead put in the start of point instead). The attitude on his was not pleasant and used only mobile editing; whenever some users reverted the edit out of good faith, Globallycz stand firm and reversed it back, claiming the edits were wrong and challenged them, and even negatively comment the user on bad faith. While only limited discussions were held, Only one topic in the talk page was made and while it meant a suggested content improvement as a table form, only one reply, Globallycz, was made, instead strongly opposed it and even criticized the edits as well. We are bringing this topic as anonymous.

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

Talk:List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Singapore#Need_some_help_List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2020–present)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please take action against Globallycz due to his defiance and doesn't take it too kindly when other people reversed his edits. The editors are striving to make a standard similar to "List of major crimes in Japan" or "List of train robberies in the United States" for example.

Summary of dispute by Globallycz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of major crimes in Singapore (2020-present) 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.

Sri Lankan Vellalar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
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.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

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

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

- Terminology differences

- The inclusion of the mythology section

Terminology Differences

The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

- Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

- Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

Inclusion of the Mythology Section

The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

Third-Party Opinion

Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

I am ready to act as the moderator if the participants want moderated discussion and if this does not involve a question about the reliability of sources. Please read DRN Rule D and the general sanctions concerning South Asian social groups. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, first, whether they agree to DRN Rule D and that discussions of South Asian social groupings are subject to special rules. Each editor is then asked, second, what changes they want to make to the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Each editor is asked, third, whether there are issues about the reliability of sources. If I determine that there are issues about the reliability of sources, or if an editor states that there are such issues, I will close this discussion until that question is resolved at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, Robert. I greatly appreciate it. Let me summarize my points simply and clearly. I value your time.

1. Mythological Origin and Its Sources in the Sri Lankan Vellalar Article

=== Mythological origin === (sri lankan vellalar)
According to myth, the Vellalar and Pallar are descendants of two farmer brothers.[1] The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter.[2][3] After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.[4]

The provided Source 1 (Vincentnathan, p. 385) states:
"myth for the Pallars of Sri Lanka , another Tamil Harijan caste ranked higher than Paraiyar , in which two farmer brothers became ancestors of the Pallar and Vellalar castes : The elder brother's land , tools , cattle , and crops were ..."

This line is from David Kenneth's The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia (p. 189).

"5.9: PALLAR [AGRICULTURAL LABORER] ORIGIN MYTH: Pallan and Vellälan, both farmers, were annan and tampi [older and youngerbrother]. Pallan had many children; Vellälan had four children.There was a horrible thunderstorm and a cyclone which destroyedPallan s land, tools, cattle, and crop but left Vellälan s possessionsintact. Pallan had no food and had to ask his younger brother for something to eat." [5]

The same book discusses the myth of the Vellalar. (p. 185)

"5.2:VELLALAR [LANDOWNER] ORIGIN MYTH: Although many Vellälar, the dominant landowning caste, were asked to relate their origin myth, I was unable to elicit anything more explicit than the myth recorded by Arunachalam (1964):
A branch of Vellälas the old ruling caste of Tamil land claimed to have received grain and instruction on its cultivation from the Earth Goddess Parvathi hence Velläjas were called pillais [children of Parvathi]; kings also drove the plow. Vellälars would elaborate by saying that they were both the creators of life (in that they created food) and the rulers of the land."

The provided source 2 (The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity, p. 149)

"From the Vellalar point of view, the stigma of Nalavar and Pallar rank, coupled with the history of these castes as recent immigrants from south India, denies that they have any real claim to membership in the Tamil community. In the early 1970s, some Vellalars expressly denied that Nalavars and Pallars were Tamils; and in tum, members of these two castes in the early 1970's still sometimes referred to Vellalars as "Tamils," thus driving home the social and cultural gulf that divided them from Vellalars. The Nalavars' and Pallars' recent historical origins in Dutch-sponsored immigrations from south India, and their putativelydarl<er skin, also seive to deepen the Vellalar sense that the Minority Tamils are a people apart from the mainstream Tamil community.
It should be noted that Minority Tamils do not always accept the view that they are non-Tamilians. The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers; after the older brother's death, the widow--a "bad woman," according to the tale-made the younger one into a landless slave."

Hence it is the tale of pallars.

2. Contradictions Between the Mythological Origin and the Real Origin of the Sri Lankan Pallars

=== Mythological origin === (Sri Lankan Pallar)
The Pallars of Jaffna expressly conceive themselves to be descended from one of two Vellalar brothers.[6] The property of the younger brother Pallan was destroyed by a storm. The older brother Vellalan gave Pallan shelter.[7][8] After the death of Vellalan, his wife became the owner of the property and forced Pallan and his family to become agricultural laborers for her.[9]
=== Early period ===
The Sri Lankan Pallar and the Pallars of Tamil Nadu share a common origin. The Pallars traditionally inhabited the fertile Sangam landscape known as Marutham. They were earlier known as Kadaisiyar, tenant farmers on the land of the Uzhavar or Kalamar.[10] The women of this community were noted in Sangam literature for their expertise in paddy transplantation.[11]
=== Medieval period ===
The Pallars migrated to Sri Lanka as serfs accompanied by their chiefs, on whose land they toiled.[12] They migrated in large numbers mainly from Chola country in search of fertile land. Pallars settling in the Jaffna Peninsula, which was rich in Palmyra palm, joined others there involved in toddy tapping.[13] Some Pallars were involved in other occupations, such as fishers, servants in forts, and harvesters of Indigo plant roots, contributing to the famous dye industry of Jaffna Kingdom.

These are copied from the articles. Upon reading and verification, it is evident that the Pallars originated from the Pallar of Tamil Nadu. The same applies to the Vellalar. Both groups migrated to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu and are distinct.

3. Conclusion

The user made a preferred edit to suit their narrative. Additionally, they misinterpreted the source, which falls under WP:OR. The myth of the Pallars cannot be attributed to the Vellalars, especially when the same source specifically discusses the Vellalars. The mythological origin section is clearly outdated and invalid, as it contradicts well-documented reality. I refer to WP:RSUW.

If anyone wants to add the mythological origin to the "Sri Lankan Vellalar" article, it should specifically address the Vellalars. As per WP:RSUW, the section is unnecessary.

Kautilyapundit (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
  2. ^ Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
  3. ^ David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
  4. ^ Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
  5. ^ David, K. (2011). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. World Anthropology. De Gruyter. p. 189. ISBN 978-3-11-080775-2. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  6. ^ Vincentnathan, Lynn (1987). Harijan Subculture and Self-esteem Management in a South Indian Community. University of Wisconsin--Madison. p. 385.
  7. ^ Manogaran, Chelvadurai; Pfaffenberger, Bryan (1994). The Sri Lankan Tamils: ethnicity and identity. Westview Press. pp. 35, 43, 147, 149. ISBN 9780813388458.
  8. ^ David, Kenneth (1977-01-01). The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 189, 190, 204. ISBN 9783110807752.
  9. ^ Contributions to Indian Sociology. University of Oxford: Mouton. 1993. p. 69.
  10. ^ University, Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru (2017-08-25). Historical Dictionary of the Tamils. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 371. ISBN 978-1-5381-0686-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ History of People and Their Environs: Essays in Honour of Prof. B.S. Chandrababu. Indian Universities Press: Bharathi Puthakalayam. 2011. p. 320. ISBN 978-93-80325-91-0.
  12. ^ Arasaratnam, Sinnappah (1996-01-01). Ceylon and the Dutch, 1600-1800: External Influences and Internal Change in Early Modern Sri Lanka. n Variorum. p. 381. ISBN 978-0-86078-579-8.
  13. ^ Raghavan, M. D. (1971). Tamil culture in Ceylon: a general introduction. Kalai Nilayam. pp. 104, 184, 193.

Zeroth statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

First statement by moderator (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

I asked whether each editor had any questions about the reliability of sources. That question does not appear to have been answered. If there are any questions about sources, please state them for me so that I can ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the sources.

I asked each editor to state concisely what they wanted to change, or to leave the same. The answers are long, and it is not obvious to me what each editor wants. It appears that the main dispute has to do with the mythological origin section. So I will ask each editor whether they want to: delete the mythological origin section; leave the section unchanged; expand it; or modify it but rework or revise it.

There was a Third Opinion by User:AirshipJungleman29. Normally a Third Opinion should resolve a content dispute. So I will ask each editor whether they agree with the Third Opinion, and, if not, how and why do they disagree with the Third Opinion.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The source's reliability isn't in question, but the cherry-picked content focusing on Pallars is problematic.
The third opinion didn’t resolve the dispute. The myth section should be removed as it contradicts credible sources and reality. If mythology is included, it should focus on Vellalars, not misattribute myths of Pallars.

Edits were made to suit a narrative, misinterpreting the source. The outdated mythological origin section conflicts with documented facts and is unnecessary per WP:RSUW. Kautilyapundit (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Sri Lankan Vellalar)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_252&oldid=1268630910"