The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Corruption in Lithuania (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Detektyw z (talk ·contribs)
• Ke an (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

User Ke an is singlehandedly and repeatedly removing national poll data from the article. The user does not offer any explanation and does not engage in a discussion on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on the talk page to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Make a decision if the national poll data is relevant for the article or should be removed.

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Content_dispute_at_cerebrovascular_disease 

Users involved

• Subrahmanya preethamm (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I am not satisfied with the pre mature closure of the following discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive985#Content_dispute_at_cerebrovascular_disease

I have submitted very important reviewhttps://www.ejves.com/article/S1078-5884(05)00529-0/pdf

This review conclude that Stroke, graft patency, and limb salvage rates in patients with diabetes after surgery are similar to patientswithout diabetes

user:Doc James extracted following words from the above review and trying to change conclusion of review. This words from their reference book previously published.The review main aim is to prove previously published information is wrong.

"Patients with diabetes have been shown to have about 1.4–1.7 the relative risk of stroke."

user:Doc James depend on following invalid link with out any primary sources

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402118300250

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

please publish primary sources and secondary sources what ever i submitted , and change article depends on result of despute

How do you think we can help?

Please verify primary and secondary sources i have submitted and edit the article depends on final conclusion

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• User talk:Cognissonance#Dunkirk Critical Reception & editing for non-specificity (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• BROBAFETT (talk ·contribs)
• Cognissonance (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This is, imho, a relatively minor grammar dispute that this editor is refusing to take seriously, much less pursue in good faith. I have only edited the page once, because i don't see the need to inflame the situation with someone who very clearly has an extremely fixed view of how the article should be and a potentially stubborn sense of ownership of it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Originally posted on talk page, which Cognissonance ignored and edited despite request to hear me out. No one else has weighed in.

How do you think we can help?

A mediator stepping in to organize the discussion and force him to actually take it seriously would be helpful. Failing that, and given that it's a relatively cut & dry grammar issue, a protected edit would be helpful.

----

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Shapur II (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Kleuske (talk ·contribs)
• Wikaviani (talk ·contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk ·contribs)
• Doug_Weller (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is on a quote bySozomen giving an estimate of Christians killed during the reign of this Persian ruler. Since the quote is near contemporaneous, to the point, quoted verbatim and attributed, I feel it has a place in an encyclopedic article on this ruler.

Two other users tag-teamed to supress this quote, claiming it is unreliable, the author is an "completely irrelevant and unknown religious historian", "Encyclopedia Brittanica is not even a reliable source", accusing me (multiple times) of being aggressive, "just making stuff up", "hostile behaviour and indirect/subtle insults" and WP:BATTLEGROUND mntality.

The situation came to a head when Doug Weller weighed in in favor of inclusion. His remark ("as an aside") that the Wikipedia article reads like a "personal essay" is now being applied to the quote in question, which indicates to me there's either a lack of basic reading skills or a lack of honesty.

I strongly suspect motives other than a desire to improve the encyclopedia (i.e. nationalistic ones) , since both users profess Iranian ties on their respective user-pages and are quite obviously tag-teaming, often responding minutes after each other w/o any sign of any edit conflicts, which leads me to suspect I'm dealing with either sock- or meat-puppets.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have debated extensively on the appropriate TP, citing sources showing Sozomen is actually a well respected historian, stressing the point that the quote is relevant to the period, reproduced verbatim and attributed, asking for a source to show that the number mentioned is in fact exaggerated. No such source has been produced.

How do you think we can help?

Provide help with basic reading skills, apparently, since now the comment of Doug Weller is twisted to say something it doesn't. I'm all for debates, but the level of dishonesty and personal attacks displayed here puts me off.

• Coordinator note - The filing party is now blocked for 48 hours. This dispute largely involves conduct, although it came about due to a content dispute. DRN cannot take the case unless all conduct issues are put aside for the time being. I will wait a little longer and see what happens before making a final decision. Also, each party must agree to the mediation.Biblio (talk)19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  @Kleuske: Once your block expires, please notify all other parties usingthis template. Notification is required, as stated by the instructions at the top of this page. Thank you.Biblio (talk)19:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Camila Cabello#Instruments (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Basilosauridae (talk ·contribs)
• Alolanle (talk ·contribs)
• NeilN (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over what can be listed under "instruments" in the info box of a musician. One editors argues that the musician should only have "vocals" listed, per the wp:coatrack policy. The other editor argues that guitar and piano should be included, based on citation that show that she regularly plays guitar and piano in concert and on television appearances.
to clarify my own position, I believe sufficient evidence was provided to support that the artist regularly plays these instruments in their career. In comparison, the Justin Bieber article lists drums and guitar in the instrument box, while he does not always play these instruments while performing, similar to Cabello. In contrast, the Shakira article is an example of an article that doesn’t comply with the wp:coatrack policy and lists like 8 instruments, including harmonica.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A third party opinion was requested, which is how I became involved.

How do you think we can help?

I'm actually not sure, as the discussion has become contentious and I'm not experienced with dispute resolutions. If this is not the best resolution method, let me know. Clarity on the guidelines for the instruments section in the info box would be helpful.

The dispute is essentially asBasilosauridae has expressed. The original disagreement resulted in an edit war which I reportedhere after which we were advised byNeilN to seek aWP:3O which I didhere after whichBasilosauridae shared his thoughts. The other editor was still unable to see eye-to-eye with us, after whichNeilNsuggested they open aWP:RFC. They chose not to do so but also insisted we not move forward with our edits, in addition toasking other editors not to join in the discussion, and as such here we are. The main disagreement appears to be the relevance of the instruments listed. The entire discussion, including all the references to support my assertion that they should be listed, can be foundhere.Alolanle (talk)20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page, and the filing party has notified the other editors.Robert McClenon (talk)10:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Per conversation on the talk page,Miaow has declined to participate in dispute resolution. I am interpreting their final comments as a withdrawal from the disagreement. In the conversation, questions arose about the policy for the instrument section of musicians' infobox and if Wikipedia outlines a timeline or number of editors required for a consensus. Any advice from dispute resolution volunteers on these topics is appreciated and will help all parties in the future.^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk17:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• All parties must agree to participate in a DRN case, but since Miaow specificallysaid that "I am no longer involved in this dispute," it is reasonable to assume she has withdrawn. I will remove her name from the list of parties.Biblio (talk)22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Basilosauridae andAlolanle: Are both of you still willing to have this case mediated?Biblio (talk)22:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Biblioworm:, Alolanle and I were arguing on the same side, so mediation is no longer needed. Thanks!^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk22:19, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• User talk:Godrestsinreason (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Godrestsinreason (talk ·contribs)
• Jytdog (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I hope that link was enough to navigate the situation. I believe user Jytdog was acting in bad faith. I'm obviously brand new to the site, but was editing the "Chewy" page, when I noticed the user who created the page was involved in a COI dispute. Jytdog went in and made sweeping changes to, what I believe, were sourced content, without making any discussion on the talk page. I reverted the changes he made, and asked to review the changes on the talk page, so they can be discussed. He reverted the changes back to his stripped down, "stub" version with no headings, and a frankly badly formatted page, and left several warnings on my page for "edit warring", being a sockpuppet, or having COI issues with a perceived connection to the Chewy company.

His notice to the sock investigations board here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bernie44

Were found to be unfounded. He's engaged in personal attacks against other users, and in general, has refused to properly discuss any issues in a civil way, came out swinging with accusations in my very first interaction with this user.

This person appears to be acting in very bad faith, and I would like these red flags removed from my talk page, as his warnings have no merit.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This has been discussed on my talk page, the "Chewy (company)" talk page, as well as the COI noticeboard and the Sock Investigations talk board.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party to arbitrate this issue, and I would like the warnings removed from my talk page.

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370#Map of MH370 flight path with GEOMAR calculations of wing flaperon origin (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• KOT-TOK (talk ·contribs)
• WikiHannibal (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The source of the problem is the map which peacefully existed in the articleMalaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 for about two years. One can use that fact as a proof of some sort of consensus among the editors and administrators about the usefulness of this map for that article. ButTBILLT (talk ·contribs) (which doesn't exist now) initiated the whole story20:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC). TBILLT proposed to delete the map because as it was stated: "Somebody told me about it, people are interpreting it to mean the aircraft crashed in a location other than SIO where the search is ongoing." I doubt that such an explanation/opinion can be counted as the reliable source for delete. No reliable source, links or whatever were given by TBILLT.

TheWikiHannibal (talk ·contribs) one day later has joined the talk and has deleted the map from the article "To prevent confusion mentioned above" as it was stated. I really do not understand: how one can delete the 2-years old map in the article because somebody was told about "somebody interpretation" and some personal feelings about "confusion"? The oceanography is a living science and it's normal that it has different models, tools used, so the analysis made by different groups may vary. If "somebody" told or feel bad about the map (consider the map being outdated) it doesn't really enough to call it "outdated" in Wikipedia.

I reminded toWikiHannibal (talk ·contribs) theWP:UNSOURCED andWP:NOTRELIABLE rules. I insist onWP:BALANCE for the article as well. As long asWikiHannibal (talk ·contribs) still didn't provide any reliable source showing that GEOMAR analysis (and the map) somehow being outdated I have insisted on the restoring the map in the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My Request for mediation is:here. But it was rejected and I got advice to apply to Dispute Resolution noticeboard and I am doing it now.

How do you think we can help?

I hope that the real solution to the problem can be found. Some certain rules of deleting maps in the articles probably can be formulated, some criteria how one can prove that some map suddenly became "outdated" with some verifiability.

The map was confusing (the article itself is quite complicated), because: 1) There was no context in the article which the map was to accompany/present in a graphic form. No drift analysis, not even the "official" one, to which the Geomar drift analysis might serve as an alternative, is summarized in the article. 2) The map was outdated (the authors released a newer version, plus a still newer (by several years) "official" drift analysis exists, based on more findings and tests, which served as a basis for the present search. I also offered a solution, to create a subsection on drift analyses and mention both the "official" one and the Geomar analysis. All relevant details are at talk page. When the article was created, the Geomar analysis added to the overall picture but as more and more info and reports emerged, it became obsolete (in the context of the article - this is not to say it cannot be correct). I see it more like an opinion ofTBILLT,Martinevans123 and me against the opinion of KOT-TOK.WikiHannibal (talk)20:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Coordinator note - HelloKOT-TOK. Before proceeding any further, it is required that you notify WikiHannibal on his talk page by postingthis template. See the instructions at the top of the page. Thank you.Biblio (talk)00:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

HelloBiblioworm! Thanks for advice, I just have notifiedWikiHannibal on his talk page about the dispute.KOT-TOK (talk)22:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you,KOT-TOK. We must now wait for WikiHannibal's comments, as participation here is strictly voluntary.Biblio (talk)04:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, all criteria to open this case have been fulfilled. Extensive talk page discussion has taken place, and both parties have made their opening statements. @DRN volunteers: Is any DRN volunteer willing to open and mediate this case?Biblio (talk)17:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I will act as the mediator for this case. Please readUser:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow them. I don't claim to have any special knowledge about this case, other than that the airplane has been missing for four years and is a deep mystery. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other. That usually just results in going on and on. I will ask the questions and you can address your answers to me.

Now: It appears that the issue is the deletion of a map. There are multiple maps in the article. Will someone please tell me which one was deleted, and whether it has been restored? Also, are there any other issues besides deletion of the map? Will each editor please explain in one paragraph why the map should be restored or kept or why the map should be deleted? If this case is only about a map, it should be relatively straightforward because there is no room for compromise, and the purpose of this noticeboard is compromise. That means that if there is a persistent disagreement about the map, that cannot be resolved by discussion, we will have to go to aRequest for Comments. That takes 30 days, but after this case is closed.

Are there any issues other than a map? What is your rationale for why to include or exclude the map?Robert McClenon (talk)03:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WikiHannibal - Please reply within 24 hours.Robert McClenon (talk)03:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for questions. I will try to answer to all the questions asked by the mediator :

1. " which one was deleted, and whether it has been restored?" - I am starting the dispute about that map deleted 5th of May 2018:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#/media/File:MH370_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_map_GEOMAR_calculation_01_EN.png One can see that the map still existed in the article's previous version 5th of May:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=839725701. It first appeared in the MH370 article back in 2016:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370&oldid=727143715 .

2. "Also, are there any other issues besides deletion of the map?" No, as far as I can see it is the map and the procedure/argumentation to delete it. All other things are closely connected with the map itself and with drift analysis shown by the map. I just cannot understand how one editor can delete the map (which existed in the article peacefully for so long) just because of strange talk demand without proper explanations and without giving any reliable sources.

3. "Will each editor please explain in one paragraph why the map should be restored or kept ...". I can explain my pledge to restore the map and to keep it in the article as a good map provided by reliable oceanography source which based on the correct and a simple scientific question: "Which place in the ocean the MH370 flaperon (found on the Réunion Island east beach, July 2015) could be drifting from?" The map is important because the clear simple question "Where from it came?" was asked and then answered by proper oceanography methods^[1], the probability of different areas of flaperon origin calculated and shown on the map quite clear, easy to percept.

4. "Are there any issues other than a map? What is your rationale for why to include or exclude the map?" No, I would like to keep the dispute close to the subject, to the map. My rationale to include the map mentioned above.KOT-TOK (talk)20:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

• 1. I agree with what KOT-TOK wrote.
• 2. I agree with what KOT-TOK wrote (except for his last sentence, of course).
• 3. I do not want the map to be restored/kept. The reasons for its deletion are at the talk page of the article and in "Summary of dispute by WikiHannibal" here (above). I can provide more detailed explanation to specific points, if need be. I am not sure if I should comment on KOT-TOK's argumentation he presented here (First statements by editors, 3.) but generally speaking, the question "Where from it [= the flaperon] came?" is obsolete, because some 20 other objects have been discovered since, and their possible points of origin "calculated"; the flaperon was especially relevant at the time when the map was added to the article, because the flaperon was the first piece from the aircraft found. And I have to repeat again that later even the publisher of the map in question made new calculations, and a different - although similar - map. So even if we wanted to add the map specifically for one of the objects found (=the flaperon) for some reason, we would be using a map considered outdated by its publishers (Geomar). Plus other drift studies concerning the flaperon were made by other bodies. Without any context, an outdated map based just one one object found, and showing a vast area of possible points of its origin, introduces confusing elements into the article, especially due to the fact that the 2018 search (which has been in the news lately) was based on findings that used a combination of many models and more data (described in a summary form inThe search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part III, for example, which is used as a source in the article), thus focusing on a more narrow search area (with no results, though).
• 4. Seems this has been answered already above.

Thanks for your time,WikiHannibal (talk)19:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay. So the issue is a map. I will note that there are multiple other maps in the article, so we need to be clear in discussion. Let's try again. Will each editor please again state why they want the specific map included or excluded? (Discussion above seemed to run on various issues.) Also, is either editor willing to propose a compromise? If not, we may have to use aRequest for Comments.Robert McClenon (talk)15:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I pledge to restore the map in the article and keep it there because of two main points.

1. The first point is more about Wikipedia rules and regulations: the procedure of deleting something that existed in the article for years. My opponent insisted that the map is somehow "outdated" but in my opinion failed to provide enough arguments and reliable sources to prove it. I would like to clarify the Wiki rules: what exactly one editor needs to provide to delete such a map which disturbed nobody before?

Concerning the "outdated map" arguments: the flaperon is a biggest, heaviest and sturdiest part of all debris and the only one having the serial numbers confirmed to be from MH370 (i.e. most reliable one), it was the first one to found and probably the first one came ashore, having some ocean vegetation on it (vegetation on the flaperon is another area of analysis). I will not go deep into details but the map is made by the pure oceanography approach of GEOMAR group (using no other non-oceanographic restrictions about the possible areas of flaperon origin). On the contrary, the "official" CSIRO group may use more debris for analysis but CSIRO from the very beginning was limited in the terms of possible areas of flaperon (and other debris) origin! If one looks into the official document from ATSB (November 2016)^[2] which hired CSIRO group for drift analysis (ATSB being an employer and paying the money to CSIRO is in position to set the aims of the CSIRO job) then one can clearly see the aim formulated on page 18:The aim of the CSIRO drift study was to determine the probability of locations along the 7th arc (defined by SATCOM analysis as between 45°S and 22°S) being the origin of the recovered debris.

So, the CSIRO group could not take into analysis any other areas of possible flaperon origin - the employer asked them quite directly to limit their search by 7th arc area (from 22°S to 45°S). The CSIRO obeyed and did calculation/simulations only for 7th arc area! It's stated in the same document very clearly:A forward-tracking numerical simulation was created. Within the simulation, flaperons and other modelled debris were deployed along the 7th arc and allowed to drift freely.

No doubts that this "limited from the start" analysis could not provide wider results as GEOMAR analysis did. So, I guess it gives me right to speak about the CSIRO analysis as "outdated" or limited from the very beginning.

2. The second point is the need for that map in the article, the usefulness of this map from both scientifical (different approach and methods giving different results) and historical points (there were completely different results of drift analysis which official search authorities failed to take into account and now we see the total fiasco of the underwater search) of view. It does not only represent the approach and results just different from the "official" CSIRO group (as I explained above) but it also gives natural, logical, easy to percept, the graphical answer (obtained by oceanography science only) to that simple straightforward question: "Where is the place the flaperon came from?" The official CSIRO group, unfortunately, provided only vague, not so perceptive maps which answer different question: "Where on the 7th arc (made by satellite ping analysis) the place of flaperon origin?". So, the CSIRO already limited the area of flaperon origin search by the 7th arc's area BEFORE they did any oceanography analysis. Such a decision lead CSIRO to the completely different results. Results which the CSIRO leader David Griffin later (December 2016) himself proclaimed as not so correct ones and decided to move the search area to the north^[3] and the CSIRO employer ATSB agreed to move the search area in the official document^[4]:the experts agreed that the previously defined indicative underwater area is unlikely to contain the missing aircraft between latitudes 36°S and 39.3°S along the 7th arc.The experts also agreed that CSIRO’s debris drift modelling results present strong evidence that the aircraft is most likely to be located to the north of the current indicative underwater search areaKOT-TOK (talk)22:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The above statement is too long to be a useful statement in aRequest for Comments. Be concise. Will the editor who wants to restore the map please provide a one-paragraph description of what they want to restore, intended for use in the RFC? They can provide a longer argument in the discussion for the RFC.Will the editor who wants to exclude the map please provide a one-paragraph statement of why they think that particular map should be excluded?Robert McClenon (talk)19:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

"Will the editor who wants to restore the map please provide a one-paragraph description of what they want to restore, intended for use in the RFC?"

Yes, of course. I want to restore the map (based on GEOMAR group flaperon drift analysis) because the map has been deleted without proper explanation and without links (reliable sources) provided to support such a decision. The map is not "outdated" and it is very good for the article, easy to understand (very perceptive), useful from both scientific and historical point of view (especially taking into account the outcome of the underwater search for MH370).KOT-TOK (talk)23:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I can only repeat what I wrote in the summary here. I do not want to restore the MAP because: 1) Most importantly, there is no context in the article for the MAP to accompany/present in a graphic form: no drift analysis, not even the "official" one, to which the Geomar drift analysis (the MAP being its outcome) might serve as an alternative, is summarized in the article. 2) The publishers consider their MAP outdated (they released a newer version). 3) More specific drift analyses (with more data, from more objects, not just the flaperon) were made later, and the article is on the (location of the) aircraft, not just the possible origin of the flaperon itself. NB: I offered a solution, a compromise, to create a subsection on drift analyses and mention both the "official" one and the Geomar analysis.WikiHannibal (talk)10:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I haven't been asking exactly the right question in order to prepare the RFC. I will have to ask: "Should the following map be restored to the article?" I need two pieces of information to pose the RFC. The first is a short name for the map (to replace "the following map"). Is it "The GEOMAR flaperson drift analysis map"? The second is the actual link to the map.User:KOT-TOK: Please provide these, and I can prepare the RFC.

Additional short statements may also be made, but at this point we just need to get the RFC out onto the talk page.Robert McClenon (talk)01:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, now I got it.

1. A short name for the map - I guess the original name is better: "map of MH370 with GEOMAR calculation of wing flaperon origin".

2. Here is the original map which we are talking about:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MH370_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_map_GEOMAR_calculation_01_EN.png It's the correct link to Wikicommons, not the talk page.

The addition short statements is in my third statement if you will need it. Thank you for your time.KOT-TOK (talk)19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• User talk:Bankster#June 2018 (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Bankster (talk ·contribs)
• YborCityJohn (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

User YborCityJohn breaks the civility guidelines after removing two hidden notes he wrote onAdult Swim where he deliberately warns other users to not edit the owner parameter in the channel's infoboxwith his own personal point of view. After removing them twice, the user reacts in rage and poststhis message on my talk page , where he implies that I don't receive the channel because I'm not living in the US. I proceded to leave him a warning in his TP after that, only to receive thisracist-like message, in which he directly tells me to "bug off stick to editing Peruvian articles", implying that I should be limiting myself to contribute in articles because of my nationality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Warning him on his own talk page about the issue on Adult Swim thrice.

How do you think we can help?

Giving him the last chance to retract itself from his uncivil warning regarding an editor's nationality.

I was admittedly uncivil but that's becauseUser:Bankster was reverting my edits inAdult Swim andviolating the 3RR in the process. There is currently an ongoing edit war in the Adult Swim article of whichUser:Bankster is actively a part of in which Wikipedians are changing the Owner section adding multiple corporations to the Ownership structure i.e. Cartoon Network, Inc., (Turner Broadcasting System), a division of WarnerMedia, a Subsidary of AT&T when it should simply be Cartoon Network, Inc. then (Turner Broadcasting System) in small letters and that's it, it is redundant and takes up too much space to add every single company that Adult Swim, Williams Street and Turner Broadcasting falls under. My resolution was to add the following line under Owner as a courtesy notice and above the start of the actual article itself, ""Important Notice: Do Not Change or Alter This Section i.e. adding wording pertaining to AT&T to any portion of this line. Please see this article's talk page for further discussion. Any alterations will be treated as vandalism and will be dealt with accordingly. Thank you.",User:Bankster kept removing this. I then created a discussion onTalk:Adult Swim of whichUser:Bankster either did not want to or refused to participate in before reverting my edits. I tried to explain to him that it was very important that the notice remain so the article especially the InfoBox does not get over cluttered, but it got very heated and yes I did say some things that I should not have butUser:Bankster should have gone to the Adult Swim Talk Page and discussed it first instead he just reverts, reverts, reverts instead of talking it out which if you look his talk pageUser_talk:Bankster he has clearly gotten in trouble from acting first and not discussing by having his editing privileges temporarily suspended FIVE times for alleged or confirmed vandalism and receive numerous warning notices whereas I have only received one or two warning notices and have NEVER had my edit privileges compromised or suspended for any reason. AdditionalUser:Bankster is editing an article pertaining to a U.S. television network broadcast only in the U.S. to U.S. television and Internet subscribers and being that he lives in Peru he really doesn't have a clear knowledge that particular network, it is my opinion that a Wikipedian should have some clear knowledge of history of a particular article before editing, I mean how would it look if I went to the Peruvian Wikipedia page and started editing about the Peruvian government and such when I have no knowledge of its infrastructure.YborCityJohn (talk)03:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other editor. This case does not seem to be appropriate for DRN. It seems to be a complaint about incivility, rather than a content dispute. To the extent that it is about incivility, the editors are encouraged to continue to be civil to each other and to put any incivility aside. Incivility may be reported atWP:ANI, but editors are encouraged to work things out, and are also admonished to readthe boomerang essay. To the extent that it is a content dispute, there has not been enough discussion on the article talk page. (Discussion on a user talk page is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.) Discuss any content issues on the article talk page. If discussion is extensive and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here.Robert McClenon (talk)11:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• User talk:173.209.178.244#Best know for (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• FlightTime (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

This IP is going to BLP pages of well know people and removing "Best known as/for" lines from mostly the lead, saying it opinion and not content. This is on thousands of pages. I cannot find anything in MOS so I thought I'd try here.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

Policy, opinions ect...

In response to FlightTimes' good-faith complaint, let's take one example:Kirstie Ally. The article stated that she is "best" known for her role in the TV show Cheers. I disagree. I think she's better known for her roles in the "Look Who's Talking" film franchise. Whose opinion carries more weight, mine or the editor who wrote (or restores) "best known"? Without a source (or a clear consensus), the answer on Wikipedia is, both opinions carry equal weight. The fact that the phrase is used on "thousands of pages" is a weak argument. There are lots of things that have been on thousands of pages but are not any more because they were a bad idea (spoiler alerts as an example among others). I asked for the policy or guideline about this matter. I haven't seen it. Thanks.173.209.178.244 (talk)21:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why not go to each page and start a discussion ? You're going to many pages and just removing the statement, that's not how it's done. So all 10 or 20 pages you have removed it from, you're saying that that person is better known for something else ? -FlightTime(open channel)21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Tulsa race riot#casualties - Red Cross section (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Volunteer_Marek (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

user is reverting the article to push their own bias. I am simply reporting the contents of the original document which their reference incorrectly paraphrases with the intention of massively inflating an official death toll by quoting the highest quoted number the original author states he had heard but could not confirm.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

reverting their edit, discussing on the talk page, private messages.

How do you think we can help?

just quickly check the original red cross document to verify i am telling the truth. it's at the top of page 3 in the pdf just like in the reference and leave a note on the talk page giving your decision.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, although it has been minimal. The filing party has not notified the other editor.Robert McClenon (talk)04:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing unregistered editor is advised as follows. First, signing your posts on talk pages is strongly recommended, and you have sometimes forgotten to do this. Second, if you wish to engage in dispute resolution, it would be extremely useful (although not required) to register an account, because IP addresses shift.Robert McClenon (talk)04:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - It is not the responsibility of a volunteer at this noticeboard to "just quickly check the original [document] to verify ... the truth." The purpose of this noticeboard is to provide moderated discussion with the objective of compromise.Robert McClenon (talk)04:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
• Coordinator note. Left message for IP on their talk page.Biblio (talk)04:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing IP address hasn't edited in 48 hours. It is likely that this means that the IP address has been reassigned (as is often the case with IPs). Volunteer Marek hasn't yet been notified.Robert McClenon (talk)17:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Naturopathy (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Claireru78 (talk ·contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk ·contribs)
• tronvillain (talk ·contribs)
• Aeberding (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

It is clear that the administrator for this particular page has a very strong bias against naturopathic doctors. He rejects all of the reasonable edits suggested by people in the profession. If one considers that various states and provinces have legitimized this profession, it stands to reason that there were arguments made for doing so. The fact that none of these arguments is presented in this article shows a very strong bias, one that has travelled up the ranks of Wikipedia. This is very serious and could potentially open Wikipedia to libel.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to contact the administrator. We have tried to edit the piece but the administrator ignores all edits that don't support his bias.

How do you think we can help?

I think you should not allow this administrator to manage this page any longer. He is too biased.

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Mary Hopkin# Mary Hopkin in the Land of... (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Verbcatcher (talk ·contribs)
• 210.19.117.130 (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns the inclusion of detailed table about a television series. I think the table is undesirable, based onWP:NOTEVERYTHING andWP:WEIGHT. The IP editor and three other editors have responded to the talk page discussion. In my view the consensus of the discussion was to omit the table, but the IP editor has again added the table to the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to follow the guidelines atWikipedia:Dispute resolution.

We have communicated though edit summaries, talk page discussion and an exchange onmy user talk page. There seems little point in posting on the user page of an IP editor whose IP address changes frequently.

How do you think we can help?

Review my assessment that the consensus talk page discussion was to omit the table.

Advise how to take the issue forward.

• Volunteer note - The posts to the article talk page and the user talk page of the filing party hardly qualify as discussion, because the filing party has made repeated statements, attempting to discuss, but there has been no real response. This does not really seem to satisfy the preconditions for discussion here. (Why try to moderate a discussion here when there has been no real discussion on a talk page?)Robert McClenon (talk)18:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If the unregistered editor is editing against consensus, the filing editor may consider requesting semi-protection of the article for a short period to encourage discussion.Robert McClenon (talk)18:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Bhanushali (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Checkmate87 (talk ·contribs)
• Sitush (talk ·contribs)
• Spintendo (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

On the Bhanushali Talk page, I had put in a Conflict of Interest request to add a list of notable persons and surnames of the Bhanushali caste. Although my CoI was declined stating that 'there is no conflict of interest with regards to ethnic communities or surnames' and I was free to edit as per my will. Although I did edit the article with a list of notable persons and key surnames, this content was categorically deleted by other users.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised a Conflict of Interest. User Spintendo has responded in my favour that I am free to edit.

How do you think we can help?

The article should be allowed to carry the content of List of Notable persons and common surnames that I have suggested and the content should be allowed to be published.

• The reason why a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) was initiated for Bhanushali :

The intent of adding notable persons and surnames used within Bhanushali community / caste is to make the Bhanushali Wikiepdia page more informative.a) It is noticed that there is an attempt from certain users to hide / suppress any contents which glorifies the Bhanushali Commnity.This was evident when on 3 occasionsUser:Jethwarp andUser:Sitush have reverted the content added in good faith towards improvement of the article by user Checkmate87. Edits involving Notability of 4 persons on the Bhanushali is already proven. E.g.Sanjay Leela Bhansali,Kunal Ganjawala,Jay Bhanushali,Kishore Bhanushali etc. These 4 notable persons qualify the requirements of notability. Their names were also deleted on 2 occasions even when a request was made on the talk pageThis is a clear case of edit warring. b) When the last names of the Notable person itself is "Bhanushali', it is a direct confirmation of association with the caste. No further sourcing is necessary.c) The source of last names suggested by me do not exist on Wikipedia. The simple reason being these are sourced from common body of knowledge heard or spoken in our community. These are the last names of my relatives and friends who belong to the Bhanushali caste who follow the customs and traditions of this caste.Just because there is no direct relatable source on Wikipedia doesn’t make them any less a Bhanushali.It appears that some users, by citing a lengthy list of arguments, rules and policies are trying to make it difficult for me to make this article informative. These users do not have a clue about facts prevailing within the Bhanushali community, and may lack knowledge to determine if surnames do exist within this community or not and who is notable in Indian cultural context. Removing the entire list of surnames and notable persons from Bhanushali wikipedia page ends up making this page less useful. It may also imply a hidden prejudice and in turn an abuse by a select established editors who remove such neutral contents.

I am still optimistic to experience demonstration of good values on this wikipedia DRN platform. I am looking for an amicable solution within the basic framework of policies and guidelines.

Too unwell to deal with this at the moment. But I am acting in accordance with long-standing consensus, as any experienced contributor would know. -Sitush (talk)04:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The requesting editor had used the COI edit request template (which is predominantly used by paid editors) to request that information be added to the article. I informed the editor that with regards to surnames or religious castes on Wikipedia, there can be no conflict of interest, and that as far as "conflict of interest" goes, they were free to edit the articleaccording to the article's already existing requirements. I was additionally told bySitush that "it's a bit more complicated than that"; however, with respect to conflict's of interest, it is neithermore complicated norless complicated than what I had previously stated. No one from one religious group can be classified as COI when those edits concern that religion, any more so than a Catholic person editing an article on California Missions would be banned from doing so as COI editing. My directive to the editor was to "Please feel free to make anyappropriate changes as you wish, and to add anynotable names which arenecessary". The wordsappropriate,notable andnecessary cover the article's listing prerequisites, a sample of which are shown underUser:Sitush/Common#Castelists. My comments were never meant to, nor should they ever be construed as, a blank check to add whatever suits the editor's fancy. spintendo 23:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - It isn't entirely clear why the filing party has brought this dispute here rather than taking the advice of Spintendo to edit the article, and to discuss any content issues on the article talk page. This case will be closed in 24 hours unless a reason is given why it should be kept open.Robert McClenon (talk)03:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note:--As an editor, who is often involved in the topic-area (but not in this particular dispute), we've a long-prevalent-consensus that only those subject(s) who
  • have theirown article over here (i.e. are notable enough encyclopedic-ally) &
  • haveself-identified themselves as belonging to the particular casteWe waive this requirement for subject(s) long dead, provided sources claim that they were born into the particular caste.

are notable to be mentioned in such a list.∯WBG^converse04:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• • Rather un-surprisingly, your proposed list is mostly a bunch of red-link(s) and with no sourcing that confirms the subject to the caste.So, you need to
    • Understand ournotabilityguidelines.
    • Accordingly, evaluate the prospects of an article about the red-linked subject(s).
    • Create the feasible ones.
    • Find areliable source that identifies the subject as linked to a particular caste

and re-propose your changes at the talk-page.Best,∯WBG^converse04:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note:--On a side-note, there's not much/any case of COI over here but nonetheless, it's better to propose the changes at the t/p, courtesy the volatile nature of the area.∯WBG^converse`

Response fromCheckmate87 (talk)20:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • Volunteer note A couple of points:

• I was surprised, too, that this was brought to dispute resolution before trying to work out the issues on the talk page. Trying to resolve issues on talk pages first, in a civil manner, is an important step in the dispute resolution process.
• I totally agree withWBG's comments that begin "Rather un-surprisingly, your proposed list is mostly a bunch of red-link(s)..." Please read the bullets in that section. I am sensing that there is alistening issue here.
• Lastly, by your long comment above, I get the sense that you have apoint of view issue here. It is never the purpose of Wikipedia to promote anything and it sounds like you have a greater interest in promotion than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. SeeWP:NOTADVOCACY.

I don't mean to be harsh, I am just trying to point out some things to help you understand what Wikipedia is about... and how you might work together with other members of the community more effectively. Seeking to understand the guidelines is a great first step. Good luck!–CaroleHenson (talk)06:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • Volunteer note:--Which bit of the paragraph overhere don't you understand? Also,verifiability matters, not truth.
  • As toWhen the last names of the Notable person itself is "Bhanushali', it is a direct confirmation of association with the caste. No further sourcing is necessary., there have been ample counter-examples and the community has unanimously rejected such way(s) of caste-association to subject(s), in past
    • And, for the sake of it, I'm an Indian......∯WBG^converse08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note-Closing in T - 12 hours.∯WBG^converse08:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Asturian regional election, 2007 (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• Impru20 (talk ·contribs)
• WPancake (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

The discussion focuses on whetherthis pic of Ovidio Sánchez meetsWP:MUG (as he is a living person) or is, to the contrary, against such guideline. The other user has been adding this image to several articles. I have opposed it, arguing that:

1. The pic, from the angle from which it has been taken, shows Sánchez in a degrading light, and it seems obvious from the pic itself that the subject was not expecting to be photographed from such an angle.
2. The usefulness of the pic is also hampered by the fact that Sánchez is hardly recognizable in it.This is the disputed pic, andthis is the actual person.

There is not any other image for use which has a free license, and this is what the other user is arguing in order to keep using it, despite acknowledging himself that the pic is "imperfect" or that "the moment a better, free picture of Ovidio Sánchez appears on the Internet I'll be more than happy to replace it", thus showing that the use of this pic is very questionable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried discussing the issue with the user in the article's talk page, but it is obvious that there is a deadlock as of now and that the two opinions are too diverging to ensure an agreement will be reached solely between the two of us.

How do you think we can help?

Basically, offer external input on the issue so as to determine whether the pic does breach any WP policy and/or could raise issues regarding its usefulness for picturing the subject, and helping for a civil agreement to be reached.

This is a bizarre conflict. I've uploaded the picture since there were no other depictions of this particular individual in Commons, and while it is not perfect and might be shot at a somewhat-unorthodox angle, it is, in my opinion, serviceable. I would rather have it than no picture at all. I find the notion that it is in any way "degrading" to Mr. Sánchez to be particularly strange. Do note that I've used the same picture on eswiki without any issues, although I'm aware that policy might differ between wikis.WPancake (talk)22:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. A moderator can conduct discussion; however, there does not appear to be much possibility of compromise. Either the image (taken at a diagonal angle) can be used, or a different image can be found (if one exists), or no image can be used. A moderator can either offer aThird Opinion, or formulate aRequest for Comments.Robert McClenon (talk)00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Extra opinion - We have not been asked for aThird Opinion, but anyone can offer an opinion. My opinion is that the image is taken from such a strange angle that it would be better either to omit it, or, if possible, to photoshop it to appear to have been taken from in front. In my opinion, which you did not ask for, the image is distracting. Having said that, I recognize that I may have created a bias, and will not moderate the discussion.Robert McClenon (talk)07:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Bizarre disputes:) Anyway, looking...∯WBG^converse05:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -I'll echo RMclenon's last point in it's entirety.Also, as someone who has closedmultiple RFCs as tochoosing a photograph in infobox, I'm inclined to predict that the broader community will prefer the absence of a photograph to such shots, taken from absolutely strange angles.
  • It's more of a 3O and I'm inclined to close this, because at the end of the day, I don't guess any compromise is reachable, given the outright contrarian stands, which boils to editorial discretion than the loads of essays/guidelines thrown in the t/p.
    • If you disagree about agreeing to my stance, feel free to launch aRFC which will be accordingly binding on all the parties.∯WBG^converse08:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, so I have proceeded to bebold and remove the pic from the infoboxes because it may be assumed from the exposed evidence and the opinions of both volunteers that other dispute resolution procedures will probably lead to a similar outcome. Nonetheless, and as it has been made clear that both positions are irreconcilable (it is either the pic being in in the infobox or not), a RFC would be the way to go should the dispute persist. As of now, however, all discussion in the talk page has stopped and the other user has not been active for about several days.Impru20^talk13:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on thedispute 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

• Talk:Human rights in Israel#Recent trend version 2 (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)

Users involved

• NYCJosh (talk ·contribs)
• Icewhiz (talk ·contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk ·contribs)
• Shrike (talk ·contribs)
• יניב הורון (talk ·contribs)

Dispute overview

I added contenthere to the articleHuman rights in Israel and it got deleted. The objections were that it's SYTHN, OR and RECENTISM. The content is also copied with footnotes to the Talk page section above linked.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Last month, after I contributed part of this content to the same article and it got deleted, I asked for comments on the (same) Talk page of the article (in the section immediately preceding the present Talk page section,here). I received comments on the Talk page at that time and I made changes according to the comments.

How do you think we can help?

Striving for objective comment based on WP rules.

I'll start out by noting that by independent measures, Israel has actually been improving in theDemocracy Index, seeHaaretz or the raw data atEIU Democracy Index - which has Israel improving from 7.28 in 2006, to 7.79 in 2017.

As for the passage in question, there are a number of problems. The different statements in the paragraph are SYNTHy connections to one another. The opening sentence makes a generalization of "Israeli citizens" - while Israeli citizens as a whole (with the exception of a very small minority) do not support this statement. HROs criticize in general - if it is not specific, then it is NOTNEWS. However, this whole preamble of a sentence is just a SYNTHy introduction to ACRI. The sentence on ACRI is full of puffery - and worse - is UNDUE as it is sourced to ACRI itself and not to any serious SECONDARY coverage of ACRI. Finally the last bit of "has been called "constitutional retrogression" by some legal analysts." is SYNTHy to the previous two, uses "some" in a weaselly manner, and is actually on something else all together - - the 1992 "constitutional revolution" and current trends to reverse some of this unilateral action by the Supreme court.

If the ACRI report were significant (which is what this started out with -Revision as of 02:06, 10 May 2018 - the other bits got added around it), one would have expected robustWP:SECONDARY coverage of it. As it is - none has been presented.Icewhiz (talk)07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@EnglishEfternamn: - Israel has a plethora of organizations that cover human and civil rights. They all issue multiple reports per year. If this were a significant report - one would have expected it to have been reported on, widely, in aWP:SECONDARY manner. It seems this has not happened - which would indicate it is not significant.Icewhiz (talk)19:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz The Indices of Freedom in the World makes the differentiation between the areas part of Israel that aren't disputed and Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands. It's well known that Palestinian areas have undergone to say the least, disturbing compromises to freedom and human rights. So much so that Obama/Kerry's support of UN Resolution 2336 was made quite known (Much to the ire of his political critics, though I don't want to expand further on that). If the Freedom in the World indices indicate these compromises and ACRI indicates these compromises, what stops pointing this out from being authoritative?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*19:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no indication that ACRI is accepted as authoritative. It is a small NGO with a very particular political viewpoint (opposed to the present day government of Israel). There are, literally, over a dozen of similar NGOs - there is no particular reason to favor this particular NGO. I will note that ACRI was referring to the situation without the West Bank - and the supposed limiting of civil society organizations - which ACRI is part and parcel of - which places ACRI in a bit of a conflict of interest.Icewhiz (talk)19:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Civil_Rights_in_Israel --

"ACRI is a member of the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO), a network of 13 independent human rights organizations around the world with the aim of advancing human liberty in their respective countries.[22] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is among the oldest of the 13."

It's just my asking, would this put the group in the realm of low notability?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*19:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a notable organization, sure. It used to be the "only game in town" - but that has changed in the past 20-30 years. Theyemploy some 30 people - similar is size to some of the competing NGOs. To a large extent - this is a political advocacy group (and this particular report has been written by their director ofPolicy Advocacy - which quite clearly labels it as political advocacy as opposed to a more professional report), and in this case commenting on issues that directly affect them (limitation/disclosure on foreign donations to NGOs) - if no one has picked this up for coverage, it is simply insignificant.Icewhiz (talk)20:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hold the phone, I wouldn't say that that alone would make it an insignificant report, especially given the notability of the source. Nobody deems Freedom In The World reports to be insignificant, even if they're ignored by mainstream media. Again, not trying to imply bias, just asking for clarification, since many of the indicators of notability do exist here. What corroborating sources, hypothetically speaking, would in your opinion suffice to have the reference?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*20:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Freedom house reports (at least their main ones - e.g. the country rankings) are always picked up by media. ACRI is also not of the caliber of Freedom house. Two to three strong independent mainline sources (say - Haaretz and YNET for local Israeli coverage, or a local Israeli paper and a mainline international outlet (NYT / Wapo / Telegraph / BBC / etc etc.)) would perhaps be sufficient here.Icewhiz (talk)20:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Quantity of media coverage or lack thereof doesn't automatically determine notability and authority of a source. But that being said, what prompts you to feel you can trust the authority of Haaretz, and its relatively optimistic take on civil society in Israel rather than ACRI and its relatively pessimistic take? @NYCJosh , maybe you too could tell me your position as to how you feel the source in question is essential for the article. Regards! IF you folks don't hear from me for some hours it's because I went off Wiki for the night.ADDED: I say that because sometimes I deal with people who are online all the time and get annoyed if someone else they're talking to isn't.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*01:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't read Haaretz recently - their editorial line agrees with ACRI- very much so (in terms of Israeli media - Haaretz is hard left, with only non mainstream (e.g. +972) media to the left of it). What I am looking for issomeone else, who is not ACRI, reacting, ,mentioning, citing, covering, or analyzing the ACRI report. By seeing what outside sources choose to cover from this report we can determine what is significant (if at all) to include.Icewhiz (talk)20:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I see, you're saying it's a matter of having the coverage of this issue not hinge on one source alone or all the eggs in one basket. It's not unreasonable to not want to feel like there's just one leg to stand on for coverage of something. Three additional sources, I'm not sure if that's what's needed, again it would depend on who is saying what. We all know there IS a human rights issue there that's rearing its ugly head, but I certainly want to get this right in terms of what the page would be able to say about it. @NYCJosh , can you direct me to a news source that suggests the ACRI report cover a recent and concerning development? Still like to hear from you when you can respond, though I know the weekend is coming and people get busy. Regards!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*21:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn - not a single source has been presented by NYCJosh that covers the ACRI report. NYCJosh has found other sources addressing human right concerns by critics of Israel (while not balancing these with criticism of the critics) - but these do not address ACRI's 2018 document by theirPolicy Advocacy director. The connection of theMaryland Law Review (in regards to the balance of power between parliament and the supreme court) is particularly tangential.Icewhiz (talk)08:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: While I maintain the ACRI source is notable and complies with the pertinent WP policies, what's your thoughts on having us draft a contribution that incorporates it, but balances out the other sources? Regards.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*17:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I disagree (and would want to see someone, anyone, referring to this public advocacy document), but I see I am in minority here. If we are to include ACRI - then without the SYNTH tie ins - lets focus specifically on what we take from ACRI.Icewhiz (talk)17:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to be on the lookout for supporting sources. I would concur that SYNTH needs to be avoided, perhaps we could stick to the simple coverage of "XYZ says ABC, conversely ZYX contends that Z". NYCJosh is that something you would be good with seeing?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*18:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: as for "some citizens" - yes that is correct for a very small number of citizens, incorrect generally. My concern with the ACRI report islack of coverage of it in any secondary source - ACRI is one of several organizations, and this particular document is by their policy advocacy section (which also raises concerns). As for numbers on "how good Israel is" --Democracy Index is a more established organization than ACRI, and actually has SECONDARY coverage on its ratings (and critique thereof - Haaretz's headline being "Analysis A High-functioningIlliberal Democracy: Explaining Israel's Ranking in the Global Democracy Index") - the issues here isn't numeric - but that this is an assessment by an independent organization. TheMaryland Law Review is SYNTH - read it - it discusses a totally different issue (regarding the balance of power between the Israeli supreme court and the Israeli Parliament - which in the 90s swung in a certain direction (in the "constitutional revolution") and that there is talk (+draft legislation) to move a bit back). All that being said - could you take a look at the "Proposed changes by participants" section below? Despite the recent editing on the page (not by me!) - I think that we've made progress at DRN.Icewhiz (talk)21:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

ACRI view by itself is not notable and henceWP:UNDUE if it was notable it would be reported by major secondaryWP:RS therefore it shouldn't be included in the article.--Shrike (talk)10:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This started with a modest, modest note by NYCJosh a while ago, and I am puzzled that two editors are getting so defensive over a brief and factual set of statements in the middle of the article. Icewhiz complains that the first sentence is SYNTHY--well, "Israeli citizens and human rights organizations have criticized the Israeli government..." simply turns out to be a true statement, verified by theGuardian article: it mentions that "Thousands of Israelis marched in Tel Aviv", verifying "citizens, and verifies "human rights organizations" with "Under the banner of the "Democratic Camp", a coalition of organisations and prominent individuals, the marchers heard speakers lambast the Israeli government, singling out the rightwing foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who is seen as threatening Israel's democracy", etc. (Note: the article ishere. I know what Icewhiz is going for: they're trying to sneak in a reading of "Israeli citizens" as meaning "EVERY SINGLE ISRAELI CITIZEN". That cannot stand. They also talk about puffery: I know puffery, I've made thousands of edits removing puffery, this is no puffery. And if the ACRI is a notable club, and if theGuardian article establishes that such clubs criticize the government etc., then this is valid. Finally, that the article from the Maryland Law Review is SYNTHed into it is unproven, unless Icewhiz manages to prove that "This trend" does not have the claims from the previous sentence as an antecedent. The best Icewhiz can hope for is that it is somehow deemed that the ACRI is not reliable or whatever, and that that one sentence can thus be removed. But we include reports by organizations like the SPLC, so this shouldn't be different in principle.

One more thing: יניב הורון is seriously edit warring.They revert and point to a talk page discussion where they aren't participating, then theyrevert again and point to a DR conversation where they are not participating. That's not cool.Drmies (talk)21:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, why do you feel the need to cite some numbers on how good Israel is? That has nothing to do with any of this, but it suggests that you are partisan here, with your innuendo that we shouldn't include the criticism because the country ticked up in the ratings.Drmies (talk)21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Geez Louise...I must have missed that little part. The undue reversions that is. Thank you very much for bringing that up Drmies.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*23:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors.Robert McClenon (talk)19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Evening, all. I'm EnglishEfternamn, one of the volunteers on WP:DRN. You can call me "EE" for short, as most of the posters on the site do. Looking over the spar over this content on the talk page as well as in the user talk pages of the users involved, it's pretty clear to me this is complicated. That's probably why some four days have passed without much volunteer attention. It's almost needless to say that this day and age the issues surrounding Middle Eastern politics and Israeli politics in particular are touchy subjects and the potential for controversy is explosive.

That being said, let's start by looking at the authority of the source in question. NYCJosh points out that the organisation assessing the state of civil society in Israel is large, influential, and established. I'm not taking sides, that would be imprudent obviously and I'm not supposed to do so...again obviously. My initial thoughts are simply that the facts pointed out by NYCJosh would at the very least imply the authority of the source. The burden of proof is on no one just yet, I'm just asking for opposition and the arguments for it. Why, the question I pose to the opposition involved in this content dispute, does an established report of concern over civil society in Israel not warrant mention? Regards, and I hope we can get a dialogue going that will benefit all parties. Be civil, be concise, and always reach out to MOI if you have any questions or concerns.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

1. ACRI is Israel's oldest and largest civil rights organization ("Israel's equivalent of the ACLU"https://972mag.com/attempts-to-bypass-high-court-could-end-protection-for-israels-minorities/134765/ ). As such, its comprehensive report on a major trend is notable per WP. It is also a RS per WP, unless the editor in opposition finds some other RS to contradict the factual assertions in the report.
2. The following ACRI report, which I would also like to include, details recent Israeli govt initiatives to constrain the power of the Israeli Sup Ct to review the conformity of legislation with the "basic law" of Israel, to reduce the power of Israel's independent Attorney General to investigate official wrongdoing, to stifle civil society organizations that are seen as critical o the govt, to silence criticism of the govt by Israel's public broadcasting service, etc. etc.https://www.acri.org.il/campaigns/report2017en/ (first section "Shrinking of Democratic Space")
3. The contribution also cites several other major independent sources, including The Nation (US) and The Guardian (UK) as well as international human rights organizations that describe the trend described by the ACRI report.
4. Given the multi-pronged govt attack against Israeli democracy, this contribution should be much longer. But I didn't want to be accused of an undue weight violation. But if it were longer, then additional independent sources could be added for each issue: Israeli govt initiative against judicial review by Sup Ct, Israeli govt attack against freedom of conscience of visitors to the country who hold views critical of policies of the govt, etc. The existence of these govt initiatives is widely covered by the Israeli press (including in major English language publications) and no one seriously denies this. What the ACRI report does nicely is present them together in a way a historian writing 100 years from now would, or the way an encyclopedia writing at a thousand feet should.
5. The first sentence is a topic sentence for the paragraph so it necessarily is broader. WP would make for a sorry read if paragraphs could not have topic sentences. The allegations in the sentence are fully supported by the remaining sentences.
6. "Israeli citizens protested" It doesn't say all or most citizens did. How else should it be phrased when thousands protest and "Tel Aviv sees largest protest in years." Seems like a frivolous issue.--NYCJosh (talk)16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, you explain the position well as well as outline why you feel the ACRI source is within WP policy to use. You've clearly put a lot of work and thought into your prospective addition to the site and I applaud you for those efforts. Also thank you for coming in to voice your position, I realize that one a weekend (and a holiday weekend for many), it can be hard to be prompt on such responses. Folks, I mention this again because I've moderated cases in the past where some participants want immediate responses, so that's the only reason I keep mention it; don't want anyone to feel rushed.

That said, I'll reiterate that I think it's almost common knowledge that Israel is undergoing a human rights issue, so much so that the White House administration of the 43rd president had alluded to it, the 44th directly addressed it, and the United Nations has directly addressed it. That's not the whole issue for the context of this discussion however: the central issue here is whether there is the right kind of information to include this in the article, along with the ACRI report. If it looks as though thereis, then it should of course be included in the article, but in a manner favourable to all participants. Thus, in a manner in which the participants feel is consistent with WP policy.

@NYCJosh: with that, I'd like to ask of your if you could help me out; for analysis of the specific details, which WP policies are you citing directly to justify the contribution and along with which independent sources outside the ACRI study? Thanks much, and regards, fellows!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*22:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and prompt response, EnglishEfternamn.

In answer to your questions, ACRI is notable in its own right, as Icewhiz concedes. Here are sources in addition to ACRI that I had cited.^[1][2][3][4] and^[5]

Here are some additional sources discussing the trend--the erosion of democratic rights and institutions in Israel in recent years.^[6] ("...they include a law that in effect allows Israeli communities to exclude Arab families; another that imposes penalties on Israelis advocating a boycott of products made in West Bank Jewish settlements; and proposals that would subject the supreme court to greater political oversight.") and^[7]

I found these very quickly googling "erosion of democratic rights Israel." These are sources reviewing the general phenomenon and many other sources are available.

For specific issues, e.g. the government's rollback of the ability of the Supreme Court of Israel to review and overturn legislation when it violates the "Basic Law" of Israel, the refusal of entry to Israel by visitors who have some views at odds with those of the Israeli govt, etc., there are many sources available. --NYCJosh (talk)14:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking good at first glance. I'm going to familiarize myself a little better with the sources you provided and will attempt to get back to you shortly with my take on this. Thus far though, at the very least, it does seem as though you're doing your homework on this. Regards!EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*15:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Still readin', by the way, will attempt to have further comment soon.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, having better looked over the links and information provided, it would appear there is sufficient cause to regard NYCJosh's contribution as legitimate, as per WP policies on reliable sources, notability, and verification. ACRI is not only notable in this context, but specifically salient; the coverage of their assessments are pertinent, and the independent sources cited by NYCJosh are also relevant (I'd be a little less inclined to think so if they were not included here).

I would ask Icewhiz if the contribution with these sources is acceptable,. If not, what changes would Icewhiz or other users involved in the dispute like to see. Icewhiz I know you'd stated that a small handful of sources backing the ACRI information would better reflect what you felt could work out?EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding this new section for neatness and moving the discussion on to proposed changes. I ask participants to place further comments here.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*18:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to see what you guys would think of a draft along the lines of:

"ACRI states that the situation on civil rights and civil society is worsening, with the Israeli government moving to oppose moves by the judicial system, as well as civil activists to address these concerns. Not all surveyors of the recent human rights situation in Israel are in agreement, however, with other outlets, such as Haaretz, attesting to improvements with regards to Israel's democratic development."

Of course, the final contribution (in the context of this particular content dispute) would not use that exact wording; this is just a very basic blueprint of what I think could be an end result that everyone could be ok with. My concern at this moment would be how we touch up on the opposing assessments of some of the organisations mentioned. One thing I find is that when articles go along the lines of "X says 1, however,Y says 2", the reader's brain has a way of perceiving group Y as having the last, therefore correct word. We've got to be very careful about crossing over into POV lines without really realising it. Regards.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*22:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not Haaretz, it is EIU (Haaretz is reporting on). I also suggest we follow Josh's wording on ACRI - which isn't saying the HR situaiton is worsening but is rather concerned on government "attacks" on so called gatekeepers. How about:

An ACRI December 2017 report presented what ACRI views as examples of persistent Israeli government attack against Israeli democracy, human rights, the right to protest, respect for the underlying value of equality, and the liberties of political, social and ethnic minorities.^[1] However, Israel's overall score on the 2018Economist Intelligence Unit'sDemocracy Index is 7.79, or 30th, with high scores on most categories with the exception of civil liberties.^[2].Icewhiz (talk)22:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Note - not sure what the best place to bring this up is, but if need be, you can add me as a participant to this DRN.Volunteer Marek (talk)21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for your thoughts.

EnglishEfternamn, I agree with your point regarding the danger of concluding with a sentence that undermines the previous contents of the paragraph, as Icewhiz's proposal seems to do. My concern with both your and Icewhiz's proposals is that you leave out the sources I included besides ACRI. I am not sure why they were jettisoned. I stand by my original wording. I would also like to add the following additional sentences:

Additional ACRI reports voice their concerns regarding recent Israeli government initiatives to undermine democratic institutions of Israel, including constraining the power of theSupreme Court of Israel to review the conformity of legislation with the "Basic Laws of Israel," reducing the power of Israel's independent Attorney General to investigate official wrongdoing, stifling civil society organizations that are seen as critical of the government, and constraining independent investigation and criticism of the government by theIsrael Broadcasting Authority.^[1] A number of additional independent news sources have also noted Israeli government's efforts in recent years to erode democratic rights and institutions in Israel.^[2][3][4]

Also, immediately following the phrase, "Israel's oldest and largest civil liberties organization," I would like to add the following footnote in support:^[5] --NYCJosh (talk)23:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

NYCJosh, I completely agree with your assessment of the situation and agree that the final contribution has to reflect what's going on, but I say with both hesitation and resolve to be objective that describing the Israeli gov't as "undermining democratic institutions of Israel" in "Wikipedia's voice" may compromise NPOV. Why not instead say, "Additional ACRI reports voice concern, alleging that the Israeli government is attempting to undermine democratic institutions in Israel. ACRI maintains the government has also moved to reduce the independence of the judiciary, including the Attorney General of Israel." --- IMO, this doesn't compromise the points you're (rightfully) trying to have the article get across and it's more neutral.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c*23:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamm, other than the softening of the wording you propose, are we agreed on the rest of my contribution (the original one that I had proposed and the additions I proposed just before your most recent comment)? If so, we can discuss this kind of fine-tuning, but in that regard, I don't see the need to truncate the specific examples provided in the ACRI report per your suggestion.--NYCJosh (talk)03:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

EnglishEfternamn - please note that 927mag is not a RS. It is a collection of blogs (with a very strong political stance), per theirabout -Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole. - which is the definition ofWP:BLOGS.Icewhiz (talk)05:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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