Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 249

Archive 245

←

Archive 247

Archive 248

Archive 249

Archive 250

Archive 251

→

Archive 255

Neith

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Potymkin on 23:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

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 Neith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Potymkin (talk · contribs) A. Parrot (talk · contribs) BrocadeRiverPoems (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An information about an ancient deity in Kemet has surfaced where the goddess Neith is described by ancient egyptians as 'Libyan Neith' shows the origins of this deity, user A. Parrot argues that this information is false and that Neith has purely egyptian origins while user Potymkin claims that Libyan Neith as described by ancient egyptians is the case, user A. Parrot presents Wilkinson and Lesko two egyptologists as proof that the deity is purely egyptian but after much reading reading on their works and presenting their books and page numbers in the talk page, even these egyptologists disagree with the point that Neith is purely egyptian and solemnly agree with Libyan Neith. after contacting Lesko via email she appears to be on board with Libyan Neith. the matter requires final settlement as neither party wants to concede. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neith#Claimed_Berber_origin How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think taking time to consider both sides of the matter and the arguments presented in the talk page can help resolve the issue Summary of dispute by A. Parrot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Neith was worshipped in Egypt for more than 3,000 years, and the earliest evidence about her dates to the very murky Protodynastic Period. The sources describe her origins as uncertain; Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE by Susan Tower Hollis says (p. 115) that Neith "presents the biggest puzzle of these goddesses". At particular issue are two passages from books in the article's source list. Lesko 1999 says (p. 47) "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Wilkinson 2003 says (p. 157) "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the west­ern Delta." Potymkin insists the article should describe Neith as Libyan or "Egypto-Libyan" and regards these passages in the sources as supporting that position. I believe the article should say scholars are uncertain about Neith's origins but describe a Libyan origin for her as a viable hypothesis—not a certainty. Potymkin continues to mischaracterize me as insisting Neith was "purely Egyptian". A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Neith discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Neith ) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Neith article . Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Neith) Thank you @Robert McClenon for offering to help to make wikipedia articles more comprehensive I am happy that you are able to provide some of your time for this issue, in the Neith article I would like to keep the following statement in the lead of the article: "was an early Libyan deity  worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC." along with all of its relevant sources, this is due to sources I provided from UNESCO library, World History Encyclopedia which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including: Oxford University Common Sense Education School Library Journal MERLOT University of Wisconsin-Madison and several archeologists and egyptologists and multiple other sources that confirm the statement to be kept. Potymkin (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Neith ) Each editor has stated briefly what they want to say about the origin of Neith. One editor says that she was a Libyan deity whose worship spread to Egypt. Another editor says that her origin is uncertain, but that the hypotheses include a Libyan origin. Is either editor willing to try to craft a compromise wording that will be acceptable to both editors? DRN Rule A states that each editor is expecting to participate in discussion at least every 48 hours. If either of you will need longer wikibreaks, please let me know and we will see what alternate rule we can set up. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Neith) @Robert McClenon thank you for taking the necessary time to analyze both view points correctly, I have crafted the terminology Egyptian-Libyan Deity that is acceptable which I suggested on the talk page Talk:Neith#Claimed Berber origin to try to resolve the issue. I am also open to suggestions of terminology that indicate the Libyan roots of Neith. the terminology already present at the article "she was adopted from Libya or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located" is sufficient to describe multiple viewpoints in my honest opinion. Potymkin (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Robert McClenon: My apologies for not responding. I haven't participated at DRN before and am a bit confused by the instructions and the format. E.g., I'm not even sure if I'm putting this comment in the right place—please relocate it if I've gotten it wrong. My problem is that I don't know what compromise Potymkin would be open to that reflects what the sources actually say. Potymkin's argument is built on synthesis, ably summed up in this comment by User:Lone-078 (who is a party to this dispute but hasn't been notified to discuss here). It is an Egyptological hypothesis, but not one that is universally held, that Neith originated among the Libyan peoples of the Protodynastic Period. It is a certainty that Libyan peoples 2,000 years later worshipped her. But that does not mean she is certain to have been Libyan or Egypto-Libyan at her origin. Any claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Forgive my ignorance, but what is the next step here? A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Second statement by possible moderator (Neith ) The next step is that I will ask each editor to propose a revised version of the lede paragraph presenting what they think should be the introduction to the article. Since the issue is her origin, any statement about her origin should be clearly attributed to a source. That is, if you propose to say that she is of Libyan origin, the source must state that she is of Libyan origin. Then we can look at any issues of the reliability of sources, but first we need to compare revised drafts of the lede paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Neith) thank you for your consideration @Robert McClenon, the following is my suggested lead paragraph where sources show her clear libyan origin down to the book and the page: Neith /ˈniː.ɪθ/ (Koine Greek: Νηΐθ, a borrowing of the Demotic form Ancient Egyptian: nt, likely originally to have been nrt "the terrifying one"; also spelled Nit, Net, or Neit) was an early Libyan deity worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC. She was said to be the creator and governor of the universe and the inventor of birth. She was the goddess of the cosmos, fate, wisdom, water, rivers, mothers, childbirth, hunting, weaving, and, originally, war. Potymkin (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC) This is imperfect, but I think it better reflects the relative weight given by the sources. They don't usually spend much time on her possible Libyan origins and pay more attention to other aspects of Neith, so our article lead should do the same. A. Parrot (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC) Neith /ˈniː.ɪθ/ (Koine Greek: Νηΐθ, a borrowing of the Demotic form Ancient Egyptian: nt, also spelled Nit, Net, or Neit) was an ancient Egyptian deity. She was connected with warfare, as indicated by her emblem of two crossed bows, and with motherhood, as shown by texts that call her the mother of particular deities, such as the sun god Ra and the crocodile god Sobek. As a mother goddess, she was sometimes said to be the creator of the world. She also had a presence in funerary religion, and this aspect of her character grew over time: she became one of the four goddesses who protected the coffin and internal organs of the deceased. Neith is one of the earliest Egyptian deities to appear in the archaeological record; the earliest signs of her worship date to the Naqada II period (c. 3600–3350 BC). Her main cult center was the city of Sais in Lower Egypt, near the western edge of the Nile Delta, and some Egyptologists have suggested that she originated among the Libyan peoples who lived nearby. She was the most important goddess in the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BC) and had a significant shrine at the capital, Memphis. In subsequent eras she lost her preeminence to other goddesses, such as Hathor, but she remained important, particularly during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (664–525 BC), when Sais was Egypt's capital. She was worshipped in many temples during the Greek and Roman periods of Egyptian history, most significantly Esna in Upper Egypt, and the Greeks identified her with their goddess Athena. Third statement by possible moderator (Neith ) I have looked over the draft versions of the lede sentence. The first conflict between the two versions has to do with the nationality of Neith, in the first sentence. I suggest that the first sentence be written to compromise between calling her Egyptian and calling her Libyan. I suggest that the opening sentence be rewritten to something like: Neith [followed by discussion of the origin of the name] was a North African goddess who was worshiped in ancient Egypt beginning in Predynastic Egypt and in Libya.. The remainder of the lede paragraph can then be reworked to follow and expand on Are the editors willing to work with a revised version of the article that begins by referring to Neitth as a North African goddess? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Neith) @Robert McClenon I am very happy with your suggestion calling her a north african goddess and expanding on her origins later on in the article. I suggest instead of saying Neith [followed by discussion of the origin of the name] was a North African goddess who was worshiped in Predynastic Egypt and in Ancient Libya as far back as 3200 BC. I think my suggestion of calling her Egyptian-Libyan goddess is not bad either, since its more specific about north africa but it doesn't cause problem to owing to one origin of hers or another. I hope you find my comment helpful My problem with that is that is that Neith is specifically known, and usually referred to in the sources, as an Egyptian goddess. The Libyan peoples of this period did not use writing, so the evidence about Neith's worship comes almost entirely from Egyptian sources. It's not clear if she was worshipped by Libyans outside the Nile Delta at all periods, or if she was only worshipped by those Libyans who periodically settled in the Delta and adopted Egyptian customs. I don't see anything in Potymkin's sources that contradicts the latter possibility. That doesn't mean she wasn't a Libyan deity, only that we don't know enough to say how extensive her presence in Libya was. Her presence in Egypt is the presence we can see in the evidence, and therefore it's the emphasis we find in the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC) Instead of focusing on finding a solution to the issue @Robert McClenon you can probably note the stubborn approach to the issue of considering Neith a purely Egyptian deity by the other arguing party, this renders any ability to reach a fair and team oriented 2 party solution like beating against a wall. All in all my arguing party is bent on putting Neith as an Egyptian deity despite Ancient Egyptians themselves and UNESCO and all other archeologists calling her a Libyan deity. therefore the concession Egyptian-Libyan is more than a huge step on my part to resolve the issue that is clearly closed which is that the population concerned with the deity called her libyan and this is well confirmed by UNESCO and World History Encyclopedia which is sourced by institutuions like oxford university and other show the clear Libyan Origins of the deity. Potymkin (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC) References Fourth statement by possible moderator (Neith ) One editor has written: Instead of focusing on finding a solution to the issue, Robert McClenon, you can probably note the stubborn approach to the issue of considering Neith a purely Egyptian deity by the other arguing party, this renders any ability to reach a fair and team oriented 2 party solution like beating against a wall. I don't understand. Please reread DRN Rule A.3.1, which says: Comment on content, not contributors. … The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. I am not assessing complaints about other editors, because I am trying to find a way around any impasse. So, yes, I am focusing on finding a solution to the issue. If either editor wishes to withdraw from moderated dispute resolution, they may do so, because it is voluntary. However, any editor should read the boomerang essay before filing a report at a conduct forum. I have suggested that the lede sentence describe Neith as a North African goddess who was worshiped in Egypt and Libya. The body of the article can discuss how scholars differ as to where her worship originated. Are there any alternate suggestions for how to move forward? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Neith) The key question for me is: is there an RS that says Neith was worshipped by Libyans outside the Nile Delta, not just Egyptianized Libyans living in it? If there is, I'd be entirely willing to describe her as an "Egyptian and Libyan" deity, regardless of where she may have originated. A. Parrot (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) Fifth statement by possible moderator (Neith ) There are at least two possible areas of content issues. The first is what the lede sentence should say. The second is what should be in the body of the article. The lede should summarize the most important points as stated by reliable sources, and any disagreements or uncertainties should either also be summarized in the lede, or should be avoided, so that details can be explored in the body of the article. If I understand correctly, the main issue in dispute is the lede. I think that this is a case where we can avoid making contentious statements in the lede. Does anyone disagree that she was a North African goddess? If there is any disagreement as to her origin, is there any need to raise that disagreement in the lede, as opposed to discussing it in the body of the article? I am inviting each editor to provide their own second proposed version of the lede sentence to see if we can find something to agree on. I have proposed what I think should be a compromise, but would like to see any other proposals. Are there any issues about what to say in the body of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Neith) I believe that the suggestion Neith is a north African goddess is an acceptable way of putting her origins, but please to take the time to reflect on the suggestion Egyptian-Libyan as an alternative to North African, my intentions as well as my counterpart's I believe are to make wikipedia articles as less ambiguous as possible and reflecting on it further. it seems we are stuck on whether attributing Neith's origins to Libya, or the Libyan population of Sais. My counterpart's argument likes to call her Egyptian per her origins in Ancient Kemet is not misleading but simply ignores the information provided from my sources that both egyptologists and ancient egyptians consider Sais which was not yet part of Kemet as Libya and they referred to the place as Libya, calling her egyptian takes away from the contributions of the Libyans which I find unnecessary especially when both ancient Egyptians referred to her as "Libyan Neith" and Egyptologists talk extensively of her Libyan origins. the issue is most certainly settled when greek historians such as Hesiod, Appolodorus and Also herodotus who travelled to Ancient egypt also refer to Athena and Neith's origins from Libya, that which is born from Lake tritonis in North africa which is goddess of the libyans as goddess of wisedom, warfare and weaving. -Neith is portrayed wearing a shuttle on her head as the goddess of weaving from Libya or wearing the Libyan feather on her head or both. the Libyan feather in ancient egypt is the symbol in reference for Libyans (people) and Libya. -Ancient egyptians refer to Neith as Libyan Neith and goddess of the West -Greeks Refer to Neith as Libyan -Greeks refer to Athena as Neith as Also Libyan -UNESCO confirms her Libyan origins -Egyptologists refer to her as Libyan and also talk of her Libyan origins extensively. the inscription 'Libyan Neith in her Ka' (Ka = Soul) is used in multiple egyptologist articles. -World History encyclopedia affirms Libyan Origins therefore its undoubtable that Neith is Libyan in origin. the egyptians however understood this very well and they themselves made an Egyptian variation of Neith that had Egyptian instead of Libyan characteristics and they called this new goddess Nut. I accept Nut the variation of Neith that is Egyptian made, But Neith herself is Libyan par excellence ! Neith's Appearance: Neith is portrayed as a regal and powerful goddess, with an elegant and imposing stature. Her skin might have a golden or sun-kissed tone, reflecting the desert environment of Libya. Libyan Feather Headdress: Neith wears a tall, feathered headdress characteristic of Libyan iconography. The feathers are elongated and vibrant, with intricate patterns and details that symbolize the culture's connection to nature and the divine. The feathers may be depicted in colors such as gold, green, and blue, representing fertility, life, and the sky. Hieroglyphs: Surrounding Neith, hieroglyphs are engraved or painted onto the headdress or her garments. These symbols represent war, protection, wisdom, and weaving—elements associated with Neith's divine role. The hieroglyphs are delicate yet prominent, ensuring they are a focal point of the imagery. Traditional Garb: Neith is dressed in flowing garments made of linen, adorned with intricate patterns that blend Egyptian and Libyan designs. The fabric is rich in texture and color, with decorative elements that emphasize her divine status. Symbols of Power: Neith holds a scepter or ankh, symbols of power and life, further reinforcing her status as a goddess of both war and wisdom. This visual representation merges the cultural aspects of both Egypt and Libya, showcasing Neith as a goddess honored in both traditions. Potymkin (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC) It's trivially true that Neith was a North African goddess, because Egypt and Libya are both in North Africa, but North Africa is a lot bigger than Egypt and Libya, so that level of generality is unhelpful. Any other encyclopedia would call her "an Egyptian goddess"—that is where she was undeniably worshipped and where the overwhelming majority of the evidence is from. Throughout this dispute, I have been open to compromise on the wording if if I see either of two things: a source that clearly indicates that a Libyan origin for Neith is the consensus view in the field of Egyptology; or a source establishing that Neith was worshipped by Libyans in Libya, not Egypt. I have not seen either. (The assertion above that Sais was considered to be part of Libya at some point in Egyptian history is not sourced. I have no doubt that SAis was a point of contact between the two cultures, like the First Cataract region was a point of contact between Egyptian and Nubian culture, but I don't think that is enough to justify calling Neith Libyan.) A. Parrot (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Sixth statement by possible moderator (Neith ) It appears that one editor wants to describe Neith as a Libyan goddess, and another editor wants to describe her as an Egyptian goddess. Is that correct? An article about a goddess who was worshiped two thousand years ago or six thousand years ago is a historical article, and should be based on reliable historical sources. It is at this time more important how her origin has been described by twentieth-century scholars than by ancient scholars. It is true that the ancient sources were Egyptian and characterized her as Egyptian because the ancient written records are Egyptian. What do modern scholars say her origin was? I am now asking each editor to identify two reliable historical sources that support their view as to the origin of Neith. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Neith) @Robert McClenon thank you for the follow up on Neith's origins. Publications on the certainty of the Libyan origins of Neith are so numerous that the already provided sources of UNESCO and World History Encyclopedia have adopted it without question, indeed it is extremely important to show that 20th century and 21st century scholars have now agreed on her Libyan origins as a known fact, here, on top of the previously given sources, some more of the most well known and well cited publications on Neith (in English): 2020: Here the authors from this publication in 2020 exploring Lindsey Jackson an Egyptologist from the University of California, San Diego, Rovik, Patricia from the journal in Mediterranean Archeology unveils the origins of Neith and Athena from Libya as a goddess whose origins are of Libya 1987 : the official Catalogue of the Museum of Cairo also shows that the Delta in page 42 included Libya and hence Neith the Saite Deity is considered Libyan in that regard. 1945: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland describes neith as the "Libyan Delta Goddess" 2011:this publication in the famous Ancient Egypt Magazine, 2011, Vol 11, Issue 6, p30 quotes Five Egyptian goddesses: their possible beginnings, actions, and relationships in the third millennium BCE by Susan Hollis mentions the Libyan Origins of this deity 1945 :"at Esna he had as consort the great Libyan goddess, Neith: a close likeness between Egyptians and Libyans" 2016: "There seems little reason to doubt that Neith was the same deity as the Libyan goddess whom Herodotus equates with Athene; and likely the same deity as Tanit who would become the principal goddess in later Carthage." - University of Manchester here you note that the consideration of Neith as Libyan goddess is consistent throughout the 20th and 21st century, whether it is the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland publishing this in 1945, the Official Catalogue of Museum of Cairo in Egypt in 1987 or even *UNESCO* and the *Journal in Mediterranean Archeology* today. hereby confirming that Neith being considered Libyan isn't new age revisionism, but an already well-established concept backed up by high trust, high research institutes in each era. It is without doubt that modern scholars consider Neith as Libyan. Potymkin (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Barbara S. Lesko in The Great Goddesses of Egypt, University of Oklahoma Press, 1999 (p. 47): "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Richard H. Wilkinson in The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, 2003 (p. 157): "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the west­ern Delta." A. Parrot (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Seventh statement by possible moderator (Neith ) It appears that there are sources that characterize her as Libyan and sources that characterize her as Egyptian. Is either editor willing to compromise either by calling her North African or by calling her Libyan-Egyptian? Does anyone have another idea? If there is an impasse, we will use an RFC to determine rough consensus of the community. Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Another editor has joined the discussion. They are requested to read DRN Rule A, and to provide an answer to the question about the statement of her national origin. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Neith) hello @Robert McClenon , sorry for being inactive for a while I was a little busy, I would like to say that I am happy with @BrocadeRiverPoems 's final revision on the Neith page, he has demonstrated excellent ability to moderate in between. his statement that Neith is worshipped by both egyptians and Libyans without infringing on either sources or relevence of the publications is excellent. this would put the matter at rest. Please consult with the other side of the debate agrees or disagrees with the final revision to see if the matter could be put to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potymkin (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC) There are not sources that call her Libyan. As User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated extensively on the talk page, there are sources that say she may have originated among Libyans in prehistoric times, and there are sources that say Libyans who lived in Egypt worshipped her in historic times. This is an important distinction: ancient polytheists worshipped whichever deity was relevant to them. Because polytheistic deities were closely tied to places (they were effectively considered to be members of the community that worshipped them), people who settled in a place would adopt the deities of that community, whether or not their ancestors had any connection to that deity. Calling Neith "Libyan" because some Libyan groups who settled around Sais worshipped her would be a bit like calling Set a Canaanite god because the Hyksos who settled at Avaris worshipped him, or calling Sobek a Greek god because the Greek colonists at Karanis worshipped him. I'm more interested in the possibility that — setting aside the question of how she originated — Neith was worshipped in historic times by Libyans in Libya, i.e., the Western Desert. If sources say that she was, then I would be happy to describe Neith as an "Egyptian and Libyan goddess". But the sources Potymkin has produced don't seem to say that. A. Parrot (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC) I accept the rules. One thing I have learned in reading the multitude of sources provided on the matter is that there seems to be a confusion in what some of the sources are saying. For instance, one source speaks of a possible connection of this rainsender of the Auseans, and the Dea Coelestis of the Libyans in general, with a goddess of the western Egyptian Delta when discussing similarities between deities, specifically the similarities between Athena, Tanit and Neith, with Tanit being a Libyan Goddess, and thus a possible connection. The implication here is that Athena is also potentially derived from this Libyan Goddess, do we now go and refer to Athena as an ancient Libyan Goddess as well? A Greco-North-African Deity? There seems to be some matter of debate in the scholarship itself about the theory that Neith originated from the Libyans as most sources that I've seen describe the theory as contested or lacking in evidence. Most, if not all, of the reliable sources which are provided to say Neith is of Libyan origin note that it is a theory and one which is not universally agreed upon. Describing Neith as a North African deity is marginally acceptable, but I fear that this change is giving undue weight to what is appearing more and more like a WP:FRINGETHEORY. I also wonder is it necessary to even declare Neith "of Egyptian origin" or "of Libyan origin" and why is it not acceptable to simply describe her as I have presently done so in the lead? That Neith is a Goddess that was worshipped by ancient Egyptians and Libyans? It is factually true and represented in the sources. Other articles such as Lamia stipulate what mythology they originated in, but do not declare an originating ethnic/national group, it focuses instead on the mythology, Tinjis says berber and greek mythology, Amunet, Hathor and Anput all just say "in ancient Egyptian Religion..." without saying specifically where it originated from. Likewise, Bastet uses the language a goddess of ancient Egyptian religion possibly of Nubian origin I would propose as an alternative we adopt some of the language of the Bastet article, and write instead that Neith is: a goddess in ancient Egyptian religion, possibly of Libyan origin. This would represent that Neith's status in the Egyptian religion and note that there is a possible Libyan origin. This seems to be perfectly neutral language that provides due weight to both claims. This, to me, feels like a reasonable compromise. Brocade River Poems 11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC) Eighth statement by possible moderator (Neith ) We have a compromise, reflected a statement of what the present-day reliable sources say about Neith. It appears that one editor agrees with the compromise. If the other editor also agrees, or does not disagree within 48 hours, I will close this dispute as resolved. If there is disagreement, we will use a Request for Comments. Are there any other questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Neith) As of present, I have no further questions or anything to provide for discussion. I shall wait and see if the other editor endorses the compromise. --Brocade River Poems 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC) "…goddess in ancient Egyptian religion, possibly of Libyan origin" is fine by me. A. Parrot (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC) References 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.

Defense of Sihang Warehouse

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Adachi1939 on 21:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

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 Defense of Sihang Warehouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Adachi1939 (talk · contribs) Wahreit (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article originally said since 2005 that the IJA 3rd Division was engaged in the battle with no source. Japanese sources including official war monographs and contemporary military reports disproved this, noting the IJA 3rd Division and its subordinate forces were already outside Shanghai where the battle occurred. Article was updated around 2022 to reflect correct participating Japanese forces but user has been continually re-adding disproven force due to assumed "consensus." Almost all of their sources used to assert this are unable to verify the claim of IJA 3rd Division's involvement. There has only been one source where I could not check the cited work to verify. Main and one of the oldest sources used is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo" article (which has no citations) published in December 2007. Niderost's article appears to have re-worded the false and at the time un-cited claim of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement from the 9 Aug 2007 or later revision of the wiki article: "The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." Niderost, Dec 2007 "The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars." 07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. This seems to be a case of citogenesis given the works cited to assert IJA 3rd Division's involvement all came after the IJA 3rd Division's inclusion in the wiki article in 2005 and some such as Stephen Robinson's 800 Heroes also cite Niderost's extremely suspicious article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#the_3rd_division's_involvement_and_context_for_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Shanghai#RfC_about_the_the_IJA_3rd_Division,_Defense_of_the_Sihang_Warehouse,_and_the_Battle_of_Shanghai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#RfC_Sihang_Warehouse_-_Questionable_English_Sources? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Citogenesis or not, low quality articles and publications such as the writeup from Niderost which cannot verify their claims should not be given equal weight to Japanese war monographs and contemporary military reports. It is evident the IJA 3rd Division was not involved and as such should not be credited as participating on the article. Niderost's article and others with the false claim of the IJA 3rd Divisions involvement should be marked as unreliable sources. Summary of dispute by Wahreit Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Defense of Sihang Warehouse discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page, but none within the past three weeks. Resume discussion on the article talk page to see if agreement can be reached. I will leave this case request alone for 48 hours for resumed discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sihang Warehouse) Do the editors want moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you want moderated discussion in accordance with these rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is the same as the purpose of discussion on an article talk page, which is to improve the content of 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) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Thank you, I would greatly appreciate a moderated discussion in accordance with the rules. My hope is to undo the recent changes by @Wahreit to the Japanese OOB as their sources not only contradict all of the Japanese-language reference material on the subject presented so far but also appear to be of questionable quality (web articles without citations etc). Adachi1939 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC) i would appreciate a moderated discussion too. what i want to maintain is an unbiased balanced weight across sources without original research in line with wikipedia's policies. i have taken the advice of other editors in delivering a fair representation of all sources at hand, including Japanese-language materials. i do not want an entire perspective of the battle eliminated because editor @Adachi1939 has personal grievances with the sources at hand (published peer-reviewed books, theses by military institutions). Wahreit (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC) In your summary or follow-up could you please indicate (with a source) which of the works you've presented are peer-reviewed? A work being published does not necessarily mean it underwent the peer-review process. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Sihang Warehouse) Please read Be Specific at DRN. Then please be specific in one of two ways. First, you may be specific about paragraphs in the article. Please identify one or two paragraphs in the article that you want to change, and how you want to change them, or one or two paragraphs that you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, you may be specific about questioning sources. If another editor is relying on sources that you think are unreliable, please identify the source, and we will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard asking about the source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Sihang Warehouse) The two most problematic paragraphs appear in the Japanese Order of Battle Section, stating the following: A large number of sources record that the Warehouse was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd "Lucky" Division, including Western historians Eric Niderost, Stephen Robinson, and James Paulose. Historian Rana Mitter, one of the leading pioneers in Chinese historiography, has stated the Sihang Warehouse was assaulted by "thousands" of Japanese soldiers. British journalist Keane Arundel, who personally witnessed and reported on the battle, estimated over 40,000 Japanese soldiers were engaged in the combat around Sihang Warehouse. There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as its primary focus at the time. Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse. The issue with the second paragraph is how it has been rewritten, compared with what it stated earlier: Article on 2024/08/24 before Wahreit's edits: "...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse." Wahreit has rewritten this section to make it seem Japanese sources at least suggest or leave room for the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division. However, this is not true, they are specific in mentioning the IJA 3rd Division was outside of Shanghai engaging in the Suzhou River Operation and that it was IJN SNLF troops who attacked and captured the Sihang Warehouse. As for the first paragraph, the issue are the poor quality sources. I had already opened an RfC regarding them over a month ago but received zero responses. It should not be hard to go through these sources and see almost none include citations to back up their claims. Two of the sources, "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" and "Chen, Peter (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database" are web articles with no citations at all. Perhaps Wikipedia has a lower standard, but from an academic standpoint an uncited web article with conflicting information should not be used to the allege the IJA 3rd Division was involved when all Japanese sources state they were not. The source "Kubacki, Marta (2014). On The Precipice Of Change. University of Waterloo. p. 166." has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps." Circular references generally cannot be used. One of the few actual books used is "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. p. 66." Not only does this work almost have no citations for the IJA 3rd Division's participation at Sihang Warehouse, the work even contradicts itself. On one page it cites "Hattori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China." Hattori's essay actually states the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred. Robinson also cites the aforementioned "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" as well. So in short it relies on an uncited web article just like Wahreit has and misinterprets a scholarly essay which actually contradicts it. All of these sources brought to question above have failed to verify their claims, not once did they link back to a Japanese primary source or reliable official history/monograph. The only source used by Wahreit which could possibly be reliable is "Paulose, James (2012). Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai. United States Military Academy West Point." Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The volume is not available at any libraries in Japan as far as I know and it is too expensive to buy. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) References 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.

New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Alamo NM on 19:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC).

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 New Mexico State University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) University of New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alamo NM (talk · contribs) ElKevbo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is discussion over official flagship status has is now verging on bullying. Good faith efforts, to note the lack of official flagship status in the state (a fact) and lack of consensus, are being consistently ignored by ElKevbo without any sense of community. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:New_Mexico_State_University How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Determine the approach nature of Wikipedia to determine facts without legal basis. Summary of dispute by ElKevbo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Please provide notice to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 7 September 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.

Eudora (email client)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hugh Turdmuncher on 21:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Eudora (email client) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hugh Turdmuncher (talk · contribs) Tuxman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to restructure this article taking into account the fact that Eudora is no longer a "defunct" e-mail client and hasn't been for several years. It has undergone a minor name change, to "Eudoramail", and the current trademark holder has essentially said that this new iteration of Eudora 7 constitutes a reasonable approximation of "continuing development". I have sourced every statement (not just the controversial ones), though a lot of the discussions with stakeholders (the trademark holder, the current developer—who is not the same as the trademark holder—and other customers) took place via e-mail round robins. A web page is, I am given to understand, in development and will go live shortly (the project's Indiegogo page has been used as an impromptu web page). There is also a link to the blog entry of a prominent Wellington typographer, Jack Yan, and he's furnished a review where he says that this is the same Eudora. Taken on its own, this new iteration of Eudora may or may not meet notability criteria. Taken together with E7, it definitely does. Qualcomm, Eudora's former developer and former trademark holder, also bankrolled a continuation (which they did not develop) in the past. While in beta, it was called Eudora 8 (logically enough), but it had nothing to do with Eudora 7 in the past, was quickly renamed to Eudora OSE, and got shitcanned after one release. There are also mentions of Pandora on the main Eudora article; Pandora is an entirely different mail client, one that shares nothing in common with any of the respective iterations of Eudora. I am trying to disambiguate between these various pieces of software, but my efforts are being stymied by Tuxman's persistent rollbacks. While I admit some of his criticisms have merit, and I will seek additional sources and once again raise the issue of an externally-hosted project Web page, the current iteration of the Wikipedia page is misinforming people. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Eudora (email client) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would appreciate if someone would assist us to come to consensus as to what is and is not allowed on the Wikipedia page. Saying that Eudora ended development in 2008—PERIOD!!!—is misinformation. There does not have to be a link to the Indiegogo page if that would constitute advertising, but given that it has been used as the main point of contact and project page, it would make sense to include it. The mentions of Eudora OSE and Aurora can stay but NPOV reg. timelines. Summary of dispute by Tuxman Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Eudora (email client) 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.

Genesis creation narrative

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Violoncello10104 on 18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Genesis creation narrative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Violoncello10104 (talk · contribs) ViolanteMD (talk · contribs) Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Bishonen (talk · contribs) Doug_Weller (talk · contribs) Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article prominently contains certain conclusions of critical scholarship which are stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution to show that they originate in the perspective of critical scholarship. On the 30th of August, I edited attribution to critical scholarship for these statements on the grounds of WP:NPOV. The same day, Bishonen undid my edit, with the summary 'Undo unsourced POV additions', and tgeorgescu posted on my talk page stating that my edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. I undid Bishonen's edit, because I did not make any unsourced POV additions. I raised this point to tgeorgescu who replied that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream vs. fringe. Tgeorgescu responded with quotes from critical scholars outlining the fundamentals of critical scholarship. I responded that not all biblical scholars would accept these points (and further they actually represented controversial and contested theses, in the terminology of WP:WIKIVOICE, therefore they should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice). I gave a quote from a critical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who speaks on this issue. Doug Weller let me know that I should make a talk page post about this, which I did (linked in 'Resolving the dispute'). ViolanteMD expressed agreement with my proposed NPOV edits, and also gave some further argumentation which I also agree with, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Bishonen, tgeorgescu and Doug Weller are convinced that we misunderstand WP:NPOV. We allege that the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#This_article_contains_bias_towards_critical_scholarship How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would appreciate if my original argument, the first post in the topic, could be evaluated, which I do not believe has occurred so far despite so much debate unfortunately. Especially the views of Ehrman should be addressed, whose practice I believe we should conform to in applying WP:NPOV. In addition, a review of the dispute in general and the quality of the arguments, to determine the course of action going forward regarding the article. Summary of dispute by ViolanteMD Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic—ridiculous: nobody in the mainstream academia (i.e. mainstream historians) believes that the Mosaic authorship is an even remotely tenable view of the Bible. Mosaic authorship falls under WP:FRINGE as patent pseudohistory. I'm not saying that JEDP is the only scholarly way of making sense of the Bible, but the Mosaic authorship isn't a plausible way. It's dead in the water in the mainstream academia. That is, the consensus that the Pentateuch was compiled from four large documents, each coherent on its own, is crumbling, but no historian worth his salt believes that Moses wrote a jot of the Bible. If you need scholarly voices to that extent, watch the series Patterns of Evidence. I enjoyed it very much, but I kept in my mind that: it's fundie propaganda; it overtly seeks to give the lie to mainstream history, mainstream archaeology, mainstream linguistics, and so on. The film opposes every Bible expert who knows what he/she is talking about. The film is worth seeing because it very clearly and honestly defines what it is opposing. I'm not sure what they are asking, I suppose they have an axe to grind against the WP:RULES, but WP:DRN is not the venue for changing the WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bishonen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't think I will take part. For one thing, I'm not any too interested in theology nor in Biblical criticism, and for another, it's a bit of a mistake to list me here, since the DRN rules above state that the preliminary talkpage discussion should normally have "more than one post by each editor". That's not the case for me; I've posted one time on talk. But I do believe Joshua Jonathan, who has now posted extensively on talk and has also edited the article quite substantially, should be listed here. (Their absence from the list is no fault of Violoncello10104's, since JJ only just turned up at the article. But they could surely help.) I thought of adding JJ myself to "Users involved", but I'm not sure that would be permitted. This noticeboard calls itself "an informal place", but the vibe it gives off is actually quite rules-heavy and bureaucratic IMO. Instruction creep? Anyway, JJ, whether or not you get listed, I hope you will take part. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC). Summary of dispute by Doug_Weller Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not participating. It would be a waste of my time and energy, both of which I have little, ie for the future and today. Others have already said what I believe to be the case. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Genesis creation narrative 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 (Genesis) On the one hand, I am ready to act as a moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. On the other hand, I am not sure that there will be moderated discussion, because I am not sure that two editors will agree. Please read DRN Rule D . If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that the topic is a contentious topic because the Genesis creation narrative is considered pseudoscience if taken as a historical account. If you agree to the rules, please also read the ArbCom ruling that pseudoscience is a contentious topic. One editor appears to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is required, except for the editor who has already replied. Any editor who wants to take part in dispute resolution is also asked to answer one question. 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. We will begin discussion when two editors make statements about what the article content dispute is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC) I agree to DRN Rule D. I have notified the other three editors. I understand that the Genesis creation narrative is a contentious topic because as a historical account, it would be considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community (in the wording of the ArbCom ruling). While Genesis as history may be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia's voice solely on the basis of WP:MAINSTREAM with respect to the current scientific community, authorship and consistency are an entirely different question, and to do with history and literary analysis. Statement of article content dispute: WP:WIKIVOICE states that 'Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'. According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. Please see my original post in the talk page for the full quote (source: ). For reference, traditional scholars universally say that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are not inconsistent and often deny the conception of composite authorship. Therefore, we propose that Wikipedia should not state the critical claims in its voice, but attribute them to critical scholarship (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Furthermore, the current article misleads readers into believing that critical claims have widespread acceptance among Christians and Jews, when the opposite is the case. According to Bishonen, tgeorgescu and presumably Doug Weller, this would give false balance to pseudohistory (WP:GEVAL), since non-critical views are fringe. However, this is not how mainstream academics such as Ehrman regard non-critical views; 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not' (Ibid.). Here Ehrman states that it is possible for a non-critical scholar to make an argument in support of a traditional/non-critical Christian view which must then be accepted by a critical scholar. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC) I agree that the talkpage discussion is not exhausted because of @Joshua Jonathan's contribution. So I think the DR should be suspended for at least some time. Also, it seems that tgeorgescu's participation is contingent on Doug Weller and Bishonen but they are not interested. Thank you very much for your time and contribution to this! Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) I do not want to be the only editor on "my" side. So, my acceptance depends upon whether either Bishonen or Doug Weller will join DRN. Also, the belief that the Pentateuch has only one author is pseudohistory, see e.g. Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky Overton, Shawna (2007). "Pentateuch". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 15 (2nd ed.). p. 734. ISBN 0-02-865943-0. OCLC 774684287. From the 11th to the 21st centuries, however, scholars have been expressing doubts about Mosaic authorship. At present, except for Ortychodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe in Mosaic authorship as a matter of faith, no scholar on earth holds that Moses – or any one person – was the recorder of the Torah. You'll find the full article at encyclopedia.com . References tgeorgescu (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Genesis) I think that the talkpage-discussion is not exhausted yet, nor are the options available at the page itself. I've created a section Genesis creation narrative#Interpretation of the creation narrative where alternative interpretationd couls be added; alternatively, relevant alternative views could also be added to the subsections on "Authorship and dating" and "Two stories." Yet, it's not clear to me what content is contested; from these edits by Violoncello10104, and their summary of the dispute, I gather the following: Authorship and dating: the existence of two separate creation-narratives; separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ("Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic") the existence of contradictions between these two narratives; Mesopotamian influence: borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology; the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation; Sixth day: the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man." I'm wondering, though, about the statement the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Controversial according to whom? This has not been explained yet at the talkpage, not have alternative views been proposed; so there has been no option yet to evaluate what exactly is "controversial and contested," and if such alternative views have to receive due weight. So maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC) I've evaluated these points; see Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Arbitrary header #2; I see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of Bishonen, Doug Weller, and tgeorgescu. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) No doubt Ehrman is an academic authority. But is he an authority about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia? While JEDP are somewhat contested in the mainstream academia, scholars agree that we can at least speak of a difference between Priestly and non-Priestly, with the Deutoronomistic History added to the book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Genesis) It does not appear that the situation is ready for moderated discussion at this time, so I will leave this thread in hold, and will comment briefly. I have added User:Joshua Jonathan, and I thank him for his comments, and I suggest that the other editors follow his lead in discussing on the article talk page in a new section. I will address User:Bishonen briefly. Her comment about formality is well taken. The statement that DRN is an informal lightweight place has been there for more than a decade. This forum has become more structured, now that it is the last content stop before RFC, and instead too often the last stop before WP:ANI or a misguided Request for Arbitration. We no longer have either the Mediation Committee or the Mediation Cabal, so this noticeboard does the work that was previously done by those mediation groups. I have found that rules are often necessary because disputes come to DRN after the editors have personalized them, and it is necessary to impose structure to separate content from conduct (and not discuss conduct). If Bishonen, or anyone else, has any suggestions either for streamlining some or all disputes here, or for another forum in addition to this one and Third Opinion, I and others would be glad to see them, maybe at the Idea Lab, or the DRN talk page. On the one hand, User:Violoncello10104 has not really answered my question in two ways. First, their answer is not really concise. Second, their answer isn't really about what they want to change in the article. On the other hand, I will try to summarize what I think that they are saying. I think that we really have a disagreement as to what can be viewed as the range of mainstream scholarship in Biblical criticism, including of the Genesis creation narrative. The issue is whether the mainstream includes Bart Ehrman at the "left" and Mosaic authorship at the "right", or is more restricted to what Violoncello10104 calls critical scholarship. Within critical scholarship, it is agreed that the Pentateuch was assembled from various sources, although the JEDP documentary hypothesis is no longer the leading theory within that viewpoint. Bart Ehrman is not within the tradition of critical scholarship, but is outside it on one side, and is calling for a broader concept of the mainstream that includes both Ehrman and the ultra-traditionalists. So what Violoncello10104 is arguing for is not necessarily any specific changes to the article, but a more expansive concept of mainstream scholarship. If that is what User:Violoncello10104 is saying, then this dispute is not exactly about article content, but about sources and scholarship, and more discussion on the article talk page, as outlined by User:Joshua Jonathan, is in order. If anyone has any specific issues about changes to the wording of the article, please state them concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Hello, thank you very much for your help and apologies for the excessive length of my statements. @Joshua Jonathan and I have resolved the issue through consensus and compromise in the talk page of the article, so I consider this issue resolved. Violoncello10104 (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Genesis) 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.

Algeria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Lord Ruffy98 on 15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Lord Ruffy98 (talk · contribs) يوسف قناوة (talk · contribs) Monsieur Patillo (talk · contribs) 105.235.131.146 (talk · contribs) Potymkin (talk · contribs) Skitash (talk · contribs) M.Bitton (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The country in question, like Morocco for example, has Berber as its national language, a language that I think should be inserted to identify names of corps or the state as in this case. I have seen that other people have also raised this problem as you can evaluate from the discussion page. I have also talked about it on other pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_People%27s_National_Army but I have noticed that the edits are always cancelled by the same people moreover. I therefore ask for help for this situation because I do not think it is possible that you cannot write the names in Berber of a country that has this same language as its national language. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [] [] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By adding the name in Amazigh(Neo-Tifinagh) to Algerian istitutions Summary of dispute by يوسف قناوة Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Monsieur Patillo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 105.235.131.146 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Potymkin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Skitash Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by M.Bitton Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Mathglot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Involved, but not pinged (I listed myself here.) I may respond if the OP clarifies their concern. There have been issues with what to call the language (Berber, Amazigh, Tamazight) in the body; there have been issues with both what to call it, and how and where to include it in the Infobox and how to label it. I get the impression that this is something else, perhaps whether to name every governmental organ in multiple languages wherever it appears in the body, but I really don't know what is being proposed here so cannot comment on the merits. Mathglot (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Yes, I apologize; this is my first time handling this, so I may not have reached out to everyone involved in the discussions. The main issue concerns the pages of Algeria and other government agencies, which have not displayed the Amazigh name on their respective pages. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC) No worries and no need to apologize, there are a ton of rules here, it's all good. However, that is still too vague for me to comment if this DR is accepted by others and the moderator. Can you either be more specific about exactly what and where you want to change something? You could give an A–B example in at least one of the articles; for example: "Article XYZ currently says, 'Twas brillig and the slithy toves.' in section #ABC, but it should say, '<Your replacement text here>'". There are other ways to do it, that is just one way. (If you want to go that route, you might find template {{difftext}} helpful.) Bottom line: I am unable to summarize this dispute, because there have been multiple disputes at those articles, and I do not know what the OP has in mind. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your patience and advices. As i said i would like to request that the name of the subject of some pages, to be added to the infoboxes on the basis of the page in Tifinagh, and optionally, using other writing systems as suggested by some in other discussions, such as Latinized Berber. Previously, I was referring to the following pages: Algerian Land Forces, Algerian National Navy, Algerian Air Force, Territorial Air Defence Forces, and Republican Guard. However, I would apply this concept to all pages related to Algerian and Moroccan institutions. The proposed model would be similar to the following examples: French Wikipedia Algeria or Morocco. P.S. I tried to use the templace you adviced but seems to work only with texts and not with the infobox par example. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Algeria discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please notify the involved editors on their user talk pages. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Volunteer note: None of the notified editors have responded by summarizing their views in the appropriate "Summary of dispute by" section, so I'm wondering: who would be interested in participating in a discussion here? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 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.

Yasuke

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tinynanorobots on 15:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs) Yvan Part (talk · contribs) Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs) Green Caffeine (talk · contribs) Eiríkr Útlendi (talk · contribs) Rotary Engine (talk · contribs) Gitz (talk · contribs) Brocade River Poems (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is about whether newssources should be used when there are better ones available, in line with HISTRS. One side believes that all WP:RS are equal and inline citations should be added to the lead for WEIGHT or for reader interest. Specifically, an article on CNN Travel is contentious, because some editors believe it contains errors. These errors are points where it contradicts Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica author is the same expert that is cited in all the news sources. All sources refer to Yasuke as a samurai, and therefore are in agreement with a RfC that took place before the dispute started. The various editors have different views on how weight is calculated, but neither would challenge the RfC in this editor’s opinion. The news articles have been cited inline for different claims during the dispute, but the CNN article has mostly been used to support the claim that "Yasuke received a house, a sword and a stipend". The CNN attributes this to a Jesuit source, which is probably a typo. The Britannica article links it to Ōta Gyūichi. Other secondary sources confirm this, as it is rather easy to list all sources that mention Yasuke. Tinynanorobots considers the claim uncontroversial, but some editors have disputed it (mainly based on the CNN article). There is a slight disagreement between the sources, that could cause a slight change to the text of the Wikipedia article, but it is not necessitated. Thus, it would be possible to handle both issues separately, and also stay compliant with the RfC. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to discuss the issue with those who disagreed. For most of the time, it was just Regalia Symphony, who disagreed, so I thought there was a consensus at multiple points. I didn’t have much success. At first, I thought that Regalia had too high a trust in media, but then I realized that he believed that truth didn’t matter, so I tried to discuss policy with him, and tried to show the faults of the CNN article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#The_lead How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If you could help us find a consensus, even if it involves a compromise, that would be great. I suspect that the two editors that disagree have concerns that they only directly hint at. If they could be assured that using better sources not only allowed, but will strengthen the case that Yasuke is a samurai, then I think we could all be in agreement. Summary of dispute by Yvan Part Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Symphony Regalia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Green Caffeine Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Eiríkr Útlendi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rotary Engine Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gitz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Brocade River Poems Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Yasuke 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:Peter Baker (slave trader)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Crawdaunt on 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crawdaunt (talk · contribs) Desertarun (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I declared a very very loose COI in good faith, and this has led to an issue with the articles' original writer who is disqualifying all my comments and accusing me of WP:CANVASSING when I have not, and opening formal move proposals in my name when I have not. If someone would be willing to just chime in and watch, I think there's perfectly reasonable discussion to be had here. But any further attempts by me to encourage WP:NEUTRAL tone are not going to be helpful on their own. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Extensive civil discussion with the user, on the Talk page itself. The tone of the civil discussion isn't nasty by any means, but there is a clear impasse. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The user @Desertarun opened a formal Requested Move in my name when I did not propose a specific requested move. Please close this, as I have not requested this move. All I requested was conversation with external viewpoints included, such that when I might* propose a requested move, it already had some consensus as to how best to title articles per WP:CRITERIAORDER. Summary of dispute by Desertarun Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispte is over a requested move. That discussion is taking place here;[]. Having the dispute in two different places is non-sensical, so I won't be engaging with the process on this page any further. Desertarun (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) discussion FYI. I have commented on the discussion and attempted to identify the points of disagreement. These all appear to be content, not conduct, issues. I am not a DRN volunteer per se, though I may be willing to help the users deal with their disagreements. ProfGray (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 17 September 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.

Asian fetish

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ShinyAlbatross on 15:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved KSDerek (talk · contribs) ShinyAlbatross (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have spent considerable time and research and publicly identified many issues on this article, which I then proceeded to fix. User:KSDerek disagreed with my changes wholesale, identifying 4 specific complaints, but not providing specifics about the rest. I agreed with 2 of the complaints but KSDerek reverted the entire set of changes I worked on. Those specific complaints were: 1. Removal of Hyphen Magazine article citation - used in the article to cite a top-selling pornographic DVD in 2005 (I agreed to restore this) 2. Changing Rothman's text to cite instead Rothman's primary sources for the same research – Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. I pointed out that Rothman makes a factual error with the Shor & Golriz study. (I agreed to restore this if a note about its factual inaccuracy is included) 3. Criticism of Shor & Golriz's findings. It's not really Wikipedia's job to debate the truthfulness of published research, so I refused to remove this. My edits reflect what the published research said. 4. Arguing that if interracial marriage stats are not relevant (which we agreed on), then pornography and sex tourism are also not relevant (which we disagreed on). I don't think there's a decisive way to explain this, but also, KSDerek has not written why they think this, either. I did not remove the Pornography section and I made only insubstantial changes to the Tourism section. A previous dispute with a previous IP user resulted in that IP user going silent. (There are two IP users technically, but every indication is that they are the same person.) I dealt with every issue they raised (mostly by explaining the misconception) and made a new edit incorporating new research. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Asian_fetish#Regarding_recent_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Identifying the proper way to discuss and resolve complaints about edits. Identifying what Wikipedia editors can and can't do with regards to representing sources. Thank you in advance for your time. Sorry – quick correction. KSDerek did say their reason for believing Pornography and Sex Tourism are not relevant to "Asian fetish" is because the word "fetish" does not appear in sources in those sections. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Please note I have also opened a sockpuppet investigation on this user. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KSDerek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Asian fetish 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.

Metrication in the United Kingdom

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Friendliness12345 on 10:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Friendliness12345 (talk · contribs) DeFacto (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an on going dispute around consensus on changing the existing lead imagine. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom#The lead photo How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Confirming the consensus, and the opinion of the third party. Summary of dispute by DeFacto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This section is to be written by DeFacto, not the filing editor. --Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Defacto does not believe consensus has been made by the third opinion and Friendliness12345 on the replacement of the current imagine. As I see it, the dispute is over whether the third opinion supported my view or that of Friendliness12345 with respect to whether the lead image should now be replaced. My view is that the 3O supported my view that a consensus to change the lead image had not been achieved in the discussion and that the image which had used for about 10 years should be restored per WP:STATUSQUO. As I understand it, Friendliness12345's view is that the 3O, effectively, somehow established a new consensus that the lead image should be replaced by one of the other images that had been proposed as an alternative in the original lead image discussion of more than 10 years ago (and not the image that Friendliness12345 had been pushing for and had already set as the lead view without consensus). -- DeFacto (talk). 22:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Metrication in the United Kingdom discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note: The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Thanks am new to this process and have now done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendliness12345 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note: DeFacto has not replied to this issue in the "Summary of dispute by DeFacto" section, and has not edited for the past few days. If there's no reply within 24 hours, I'll close this discussion. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Metrication) I will be the moderator in this case. Please keep in mind that DRN is a voluntary, non-binding noticeboard. Here, we're dealing with content issues, not conduct issues. Please read and indicate in your responses your acceptance of Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. After reading through the discussion, I find it unlikely that mediation will bring agreement between the editors (although if both of you want it, we can attempt it), so it's probably better if we try to create an RfC instead. The RfC would have these two options: File:Tomatoes_for_sale_in_a_UK_greengrocer's_shop_2013.jpg and File:The_Black_Arch_near_Larne_(2)_-_geograph.org.uk_-_851820.jpg. Are you fine with an RfC like this, do you have any suggestions to it, and do you have any other concerns or comments? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @Kovcszaln6, I thought the dispute was about whether the 3O supported my view that there was no current consensus to change the image and that the status quo image should be restored, or the view of Friendliness12345 that the 10-year-old consensus was wrong and that the image should be left as it is now with the 'black arch' one hich they have already changed it to. Once we have confirmed from that what the current image should be, then we could decide whether we want to continue the discussion already started at the talkpage in relation to an RfC. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @DeFacto: Alright, I might have misunderstood the dispute here. So you didn't come here to decide what the lead image should be (permanently), but what the status quo is and what should be the lead image while you create an RfC, right? If yes, then I don't think DRN is the best place for deciding that. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) @Kovcszaln6, it seems that the only reason we are here is because the filer either misunderstood, or didn't like, the third opinion received following their request for that. I say that because, while I was away over the last few days, it seems there has been progress back at the article, with two other editors having agreed with me, and overruling the filer by restoring the original status quo image. I think this request has turned out to be a waste of your time, and mine, and that it should be closed now as there is no longer a dispute. Thanks for offering your help with this though. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Metrication) 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.

Desi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Factfinderrr on 20:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Desi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Factfinderrr (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, The article lists Afghanistan as desi. I removed Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is not desi. The article used 2 sources to support Afghanistans inclusion. The second source cited is contradictory. It states "South asians(Desi)" and then goes on to say that they reference Afghanistan as also Desi. HOWEVER, on the SAME PAGE the article states "Central asians:Afghans," if by the articles definition south asian= desi why are central asians included in that definition? The source is therefore unreliable and cannot be used as a valid source to support the inclusion of Afghanistan in the scope of Desi. Consequently, that leaves only 1 valid source that supports this assertion. On the talk page I listed MULTIPLE valid different sources that omit Afghan from the scope of desi, but the editor continues to dismiss them. I don't understand how its fair that a singular source is being relied upon to support the inclusion of Afghanistan when the consensus in literature is that Afghanistan does not fall within the scope of desi. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Desi#Afghans_are_not_Desi by User:Factfinderrr How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Support my original edit please. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC) The other editor has shown a pattern of acting in bad faith, refusing to engage and consider the evidence outlined. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a discussion taking place between two editors over less than a day. It needs a little time for other editors to weigh in on the talk page, not DRN. - MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC) Desi 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.

Battle of_al-Qadisiyyah

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by M7md AAAA on 05:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) ---Wikaviani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article from before my changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1241923794 My additions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247670270 Their WP:Overzealous deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah&oldid=1247695404 All the numbers with regards to the deployment of Persians in the battle were removed for the sake of this note: "According to Daryaee, "Islamic texts usually report the number of the Persian soldiers to have been in the hundreds or tens of thousands and several times larger than the Arab armies. This is pure fiction and it is boastful literature which aims to aggrandize Arab Muslim achievement, which may be compared to the Greek accounts of the Greco-Persian wars." According to the reasoning deployed here, where primary sources are omitted for the sake of offensive remarks, all numbers in all Greco-Persian battle articles (in particular the summary) ought be omitted for the sake of that singular note, which says the very same thing about Greek sources being pure fiction. Why aren't the numbers in The Battle of Thermopylae omitted for that note? There is a far greater case to make for that. Not only is it similar in scope, not only are the parties involved named in that illustrious note, it lacks corroborating non-Greek sources for numbers involved to boot; unlike the situation here which had non-Arab sources, which I added, and was used by modern historians, yet they also had them removed. Even if herodotus' figures from the Battle of Thermopylae, and all other Greco-Persian battles are removed for that singular note, it still would not have justified their actions. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Battle_of_al-Qadisiyyah#Estimates How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Reinstating the figures. Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran User engaged themself in bad faith followed by this very long thread Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ---Wikaviani Also removed all additions I made, then aided and abetted the other user's bad faith conduct engaging in an attempt of WP:Disruptive Sanctions. At the time I thought it was due to my bad formatting, but their behavior afterwards showed how that was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M7md AAAA (talk • contribs) 05:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Battle of_al-Qadisiyyah 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.

Super Bowl_III

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 73.28.218.215 on 03:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Super Bowl III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muboshgu (talk · contribs) Red Director (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to add content about the evidence Bubba Smith has raised regarding the possible fixing of the game. Others are incorrectly claiming that Bubba Smith has offered no evidence. I am saying that submitting facts that demonstrate poor play highly in contrast with customary good play constitutes evidence for fixing a game. I should add that my edit also preserves note of others who provide evidence against fixing and is therefore more neutral than the current content. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super_Bowl_III How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like others to review whether my suggestion that Bubba Smith has offered evidence is correct. Summary of dispute by Muboshgu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Red Director Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Super Bowl_III 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.

Benevolent dictatorship

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Banedon on 03:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Benevolent dictatorship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Banedon (talk · contribs) LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs) Dispute overview See . We ran the RfC, and it pretty much left us where we started. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? What I would really like is a binding decision on what can or cannot be included. When the RfC close goes "historical examples described by reliable historians as "benevolent dictators" might be appropriate", it should go further; looking at the currently-excluded content, do any of the examples qualify or not qualify as appropriate, and why or why not? "No consensus" is not helpful, it just doesn't go anywhere. Summary of dispute by LokiTheLiar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Benevolent dictatorship 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.

Queen of Sheba

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Afrodiplomacy on 16:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Queen of Sheba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Afrodiplomacy (talk · contribs) Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I'm having an issue on the Queen of Sheba page. I know a lot about the topic and have added to the page with lots of backed evidence and good discussions. But Abo Yemen keeps deleting my changes because it doesn’t agree with their personal opinion. They haven't given good reasons or talked to me nicely. They've even sent private messages with threats, which is not okay on Wikipedia. This user is publicly known for having a pro Yemen agenda, and seem to only want to include information that agrees with their views and don't want to respect other perspectives or facts that might expand their understanding. This isn't fair or helpful. We should be able to share all the information we find and have a good debate about it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? private messages, reached out to an admin, and also started a discussion on the Talk page, but they continue to attack without constructive approach to handle differing opinions. None have worked so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen_of_Sheba How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The story of Sheba is complex with multiple interpretations throughout history, and we must present all facts and evidence rather than push a narrow, one-sided view. I have respected the user's opinions and allowed them to be included, even though I don’t agree at all. I also expect the same respect for the evidence I have provided. There is absolutely no need for insults or harassment in this process. If the user cannot engage in a respectful and fair manner, allowing for all facts and evidence to be presented, than they need to back off. Summary of dispute by Abo Yemen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Queen of Sheba discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Pinging the user involved is one of the main rules of starting a Dispute resolution, which is something you haven't done. Abo Yemen✉ 07:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC) Plus do you think that the admin reading this would believe you without checking the talk page discussions and the "private messages with threats" on your talk page? Abo Yemen✉ 07:15, 28 September 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.

Lydham Hall

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Olga Sydney on 15:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Lydham Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Olga Sydney (talk · contribs) Mitch Ames (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Mitch AMES constantly makes changes and requires original sources to be used. 1. He wanted me to provide source for "the ONLY museum within the area." How would I do that. It is a common knowledge and no other museum is listed. 2. The original land grant was promised in 1822 and finalised only ten years later. He only names one of the Governors disregarding such an extensive time frame. 3. He in fact asked, whether it is another researcher apart from Sedneva! He simply did not like the surname? On what grounds he made such a request? It was never apologies. 4. It was a big deal on the donations for the local museum. The study I referred to explained it all as a public donation and a loan from National Trust Australia (NSW). He removed NSW! Why? There is National Trust division is in every state. Above all, yes I must refresh my referencing skills for Wiki but he goes too far. Absurd requests, unhappy with the main author's studies on the subject, unreasonable request for the original documents. I offered him to leave this article alone or read the studies in full. I may well be from non-native origins but I am not an idiot. I am tired of this editor making regular changes and unreasonable requests of 'original' sources. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Olga_Sydney How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please ask Mitch Ames to switch on common sense and be reasonable. I would prefer his access to Lydham Hall article to be restricted. Summary of dispute by Mitch Ames There has been an ongoing dispute about multiple, often unrelated, aspects of the article contents and references, and edits thereto, spread over my talk page (May-Jul 2024, since deleted but visible in this older revision), User talk:Olga Sydney#Presumed edit-conflict at Lydham Hall and User talk:Olga Sydney#citations required (Jun-Sep 2024), and Talk:Lydham Hall (Sep 2024). It is not clear to me from the "Dispute overview" description which specific part(s) of the article's current content Olga Sydney is disputing here. I request that Olga Sydney be specific about what changes they would like to the article as it currently stands. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Lydham Hall discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I have posted a notification on Mitch Ames' talk page. Adam Black talk • contribs 04:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note - DRN is not used to request that an editor be restricted from certain pages. Since there does not appear to be a conduct dispute, there is no reason to make such a request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Lydham Hall) I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion under these rules. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, Lydham Hall. Please state specifically what changes you want to make to the article that the other editor wants to leave unchanged, or what changes the other editor wants to make that you want to leave the same. Do not explain why you want these changes made. That can be discussed later. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC) I agree to a moderated discussion following DRN Rule A. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Lydham Hall) 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.

Repressed memory

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NpsychC on 01:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Repressed memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved NpsychC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The first three paragraphs in this article are currently misleading as it does not clearly delineate repressed memories from recovered memories, and does not contain the current scientific explanation for the process by which memories may be out of awareness for a period of time (dissociative amnesia, often referred to as repressed or recovered memories though repression is not the process by which science currently explains the process). The discussion is no longer productive and the other editors are often feeling attacked by me. Attempts to have the discussion based on evidence have now stagnated in my opinion. Responses to criticism about the changes proposed to bring it up to date are being shut down, and current scientific evidence is being ignored. The degree of misinformation is concerning, particularly given that google has this page as the second website when googling the term. If Wikipedia's aim is to be an encyclopedia then this article should reflect up to date understanding in the fields of medicine and psychology. There are a number of editors who all seem to have passionate views about the subject, but are not able (or are unwilling) to provide evidence so I think we need some help to find a common ground. In my opinion it is important that wikipedia articles are based on reputable evidence, and that the information in the article is not misleading. Blocking the inclusion of a whole raft of evidence that supports recovered memories is therefore problematic. I have been surprised by how my attempts to clean this article up and provided a neutral point of view have been handled by some of the editors who are contributing to this page. I can also see in reading through the archives that many people with specialised knowledge in the field have also provided evidence to bring the article up to date and remove the bias, only to have these changes not be made. Support to navigate this would be appreciated. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Repressed_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#c-Remsense-20240929234700-NpsychC-20240929234000 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps some help to bring the discussion back to evidence, and if the aim of Wikipedia is to have articles be evidence-based and scientifically sound, how to recognise good evidence. Also some insight into editorial processes as the way I have been treated hasn't felt fair at all. I have tried to respond to each criticism, but am genuinely confused by what is happening. Repressed memory 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.

Amdahl's law

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jys673 on 20:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Amdahl's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jys673 (talk · contribs) Sneftel (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Amdahl's Law is an important law in computer science for computing architecture scalability research. A recent conversation regarding the law with a senior faculty in the CIS department brought wikipedia's entries to my attention. There are two pages in this dispute request: Amdahl's Law(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law) and Gustafson's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson%27s_law). The Amdahl's law page assumes the law is concerned with solving problems with fixed workload (input size). It directly contradicts to the Amdahl's Law model listed on the same page which does not even imply such an assumption. Consequently, the discussion on the scalability of parallel programs contain mathematical errors that completely ignored the cases when the serial percentages asymptotically approaching zero which implies Amdahl's Law's prediction power on infinite scalability. Your Gustafson's Law page listed Gustafson's parallel computation model based on his 1986 measured timing of sequential and parallel segments using 1024 processors. Your page says "Gustafson's law addresses the shortcomings of Amdahl's law, which is based on the assumption of a fixed problem size,...". Gustafson's Law was on the measured serial percentage on a running parallel program. The percentage is always dependent on the number of processors at the time of the measurement. Therefore, the number of processors in the formula cannot directly scale mathematically due to the dependencies. Thus, the infinite scaling plot on that page is also incorrect. However, Gustafson's formula can help to quantify Amdahl's serial percentages when one upscales the number of processors for solving bigger problems. The same formula can also be used to prove the law of diminishing return if one assumes the problem size does not change but the parallel time is reducing via added processors. This yields the same conclusion as the Amdahl's Law. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amdahl's_law How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please invite editors with parallel programming and mathematical expertise for this dispute request. The errors are fairly obvious. Thank you! Summary of dispute by Sneftel Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Amdahl%27s law discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - It might be a good idea to ask for an expert opinion at WikiProject Computing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 30 September 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.

Dog fashion

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RteeeeKed on 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Dog fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RteeeeKed (talk · contribs) Medlawar (talk · contribs) Belbury (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Myself and two other users, Belbury and Medlawar, are having a dispute over whether or not a specific image of a dog wearing a baseball cap should be included on Dog fashion. Belbury's and my arguments are that there's already an image on the article showing a dog with a hat, as well as a meme going around showing the image with a worse caption, causing people to come to the article every so often to change the caption to that. Medlawar's argument is that they like the image a lot and have been keeping it on the article for over a year. I wasn't going to go to an outside source for this until Medlawar wrote a large text wall over several replies about God and stuff. I haven't read it since it's clearly super unrelated, but the fact that they even bothered to write it at all shows that they are not going to give up on this, and if I don't try to put an end to this dispute, it could easily turn into an edit war. Apologies if this is not the right place to put this or if I'm not being civil enough, I just don't want this to continue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Dog fashion#Dogs in hats How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I don't know. I just want this dispute to end. Summary of dispute by Medlawar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It's all so futile, there is no meaning anymore. mid september it all came crashing down, it all comes crashing down. there is nothing beyond this. the image must be reinstated PLEASE PELASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE ME IR BACK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medlawar (talk • contribs) 01:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Belbury Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Dog fashon 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 (Dog fashion) I will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A, and state that you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask questions, and the editors should address their answers to the moderator and the community. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. Please reply in English sentences, without whining or begging or crying. It appears that either one of the issues or the only issue has to do with the removal of an image from the article. Is that correct? If the only issue is the inclusion or removal of an image, we will conduct a Request for Comments if the editors cannot agree. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC) I agree to the rules. My position is to keep the image with the dog in a baseball cap off of the article. Since I've posted my original message, a few new things have come up: - Two new editors have joined in, @Rhododendrites and @Gamingcanary. - The image at the top of the article has been pointed out to be flawed. Three images have been suggested to replace it. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC) - Medlawar seems to be a single purpose account. I looked at their contributions, and almost all of them seem to be on either the page for Dog fashion or its talk page. . RteeeeKed💬📖 19:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Oops, sorry about the personal comment. Will try to avoid that in the future. RteeeeKed💬📖 02:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Dog fashion) 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:Thunderball (novel)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Moneyofpropre on 12:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC).

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 Talk:Thunderball (novel) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Moneyofpropre (talk · contribs) SchroCat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview See the "talk" page linked to the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Thunderball (novel)#Edition War September 30, 2004 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It goes nowhere. Just want an arbitration to know who is right and who is wrong: and more importanly why. Summary of dispute by SchroCat (closed) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Thunderball (novel) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Notice on user talk pages is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 2 October 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.

Queen Camilla

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SKINNYSODAQUEEN on 13:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Queen Camilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk · contribs) DrKay (talk · contribs) Estar8806 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Standard of Queen Camilla. From my research, I have found that in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (College of Arms' jurisdiction) that The Queen's Standard is the Royal Arms bordered with ermine. And in Scotland, according to a twitter user, her standard in Scotland is the Scottish variant of the Royal Arms impaled with her father's arms. There are multiple sources where the ermine standard is used for The Queen. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Queen Camilla#Queen Camilla's Standard How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To find a way where there can be a standard listed for Queen Camilla. Summary of dispute by DrKay This request is a case of premature forum shopping. I will not participate further. DrKay (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Estar8806 I agree with DrKay's above sentiment that this is premature, but I will elaborate a little further. My/Our rationale is plain and simple: there is nothing to verify SKINNYSODAQUEEN's entire claim. Portions of the claim can be sourced, but not sufficiently for our purposes. Anything that I can say has already been said at Talk:Queen Camilla#Queen Camilla's Standard. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Queen Camilla 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.

Thunderball

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Moneyofpropre on 07:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Thunderball (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Moneyofpropre (talk · contribs) SchroCat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview See the "talk" page linked to the article. Basically an edition war. I (Moneyofpropre) had made a contribution, it was reverted by an other user (SchroCat). I explained the merits of my contribution, the other editor still stated that my source (a book called "Scripting 007" written by Clement Feutry) was "unreliable", even if I showed than this source was better sourced internaly than the references book which was used as a reference until then in the article, and more importantly, more acurate (or rather I should say, "acurate" at all). How a book, better sourced and more accurate, can be more "unreliable" than other texts/books which contain less types of source and untrue above all? His answers was because the source I referred in my contribution was written by a "fan". No dispute or even argument about the veracity of the informations on my edit, just about their author. Like if all fans of one thing automaticaly get things all wrong on everything they write. SchroCat is probably himself a fan of James Bond (yet apparantly his words has better weight by the ones of other fans?), all the references book written on the subject that you can find in the "Bibliography" section of the articles were written by authors who were themselves Bond's fans (yet apparantly theses fans weight more by an others ones?). According to SchroCat: things written by fans are "unreliable", even if this whole page was probably written by fans, as almost all the references referred in it... The only argument advanced is that M. Feutry is "unreliable" because his book was self-published (even if, let's not forget, better sourced and accurate than almost every book quoted in reference section, except "The Battle for Bond" who had similar kind of sources). In brief pure discrimination toward M. Feutry and authors who have no money to publish their book otherwise by their own, or that cover subject that big books editors doesn't want to publish because a too restrain audience to sell. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Thunderball (novel)#Edition War September 30, 2004 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It goes nowhere. Just want an arbitration to know who is right and who is wrong: and more importanly why. (For the previous version: Sorry it was my first request to DRN (not knowing how exactly it worked), 48h was a little short, why even write me to do the notice rather than just doing it yourself, was expected the discussion happened in the article's talk page and received no notification ping). Summary of dispute by SchroCat It is completely untrue to claim I reverted it 'because the source ... was written by a "fan"': that is a falsehood. It's also a lie to state 'According to SchroCat: things written by fans are "unreliable"'. At no point have I said either of those things. What I said was: "As I put in the edit summary, you need to read WP:UNRELIABLE to understand about unreliable sources. Fansites like commander007.net are a no-no": that is very different to saying you can't include something because it was written by a fan. Both of my edit summaries and my first comment on the the talk page referred to the source being unreliable, my second edit summary and first comment on the talk page also included links to WP:UNRELIABLE, and I suspect that the OP hasn't followed the link to read what the guidelines are, which would negate the need for this expended part of the process. The addition in question is a self-published online book from www.commander007.net, a self-published fansite. It is not reliable and adding an unreliable source is a no-no, per both WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF. The discussion will soon be rendered moot, as I've begun a rewrite of the article to bring it up to the same FA standard as the other Fleming novels, and there will be no use of fansites like commander007.net or their self-published books. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry if I said things that were untrue. It is how I undertood it when I read "ALL the new additions are based on an unreliable source. Sources cannot be from personal or fan-driven websites" as the reason of the reverting, and later "Fansites like commander007.net are a no-no" (with no argument/reply on the content, just the provenance). That being said, I'm happy to learn that you don't reasoned as I originally though you were. I had gived a go read WP:UNRELIABLE, its a long page so I just read the paragraph which your linked to me, it was "Questionable sources" section. Read that: found nothing revelant to our matter in it, and after a CTRL+F with "fan-driven" word which lead to nothing, I didn't go further. Now you pointed out in this page other paragraphs, WP:USERG and WP:RSSELF, I now understand your argument. Great you rewrite it: it need it. But if I may, your prime concern in the rewriting shouldn't be having a text that is accurate, rather than one that not quote fansites/self-published stuff? Because if the new text still display some of the errors contained that come for deemed "respectables" publications (since they not have everything right), there is no point to even doing it... I'm not gonna insist in my claim, now I had seen the right praragraph you canted to refer in first place, and understood it. I'm just gonna hope that during your rewritting of the page you gonna read the book we were talking about and also the Robert Sellers's one, not to use them as a reference for the article (I understood that) but at least to put in context some of the thing you would read in the sources materials you would deem as "reliable" (whatever they might be a book, a newspapers, etc) during your researches. A doubtfull approach is needed, even if the author is someone know, in order to not include erronous or also the "disputed" part of the genesis of Thunderball (where there participants themselves and writting on the subject contradicts each other on some points) in the article. Hope my English was good enough for understand the essential points of this reply, and wish you good luck in your rewritting work. Moneyofpropre (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Thunderball) I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that this may be a dispute over the reliability of a source. My first question to the editors is whether this is a disagreement about the reliability of a source. If there is a concern about fansites or user-generated content, then the issue is not the bias of the fans or users; it is a lack of fact-checking, so the question is whether the source has been subject to review or fact-checking. If there is a question about the reliability of a source, Wikipedia has a Reliable Source Noticeboard which answers questions about source reliability. The purpose of dispute resolution, including moderated discussion, is to improve the article. So my second question is for each editor to state whether there is any section or part of the article that they wish to change, and that the other editor wants to leave the same, or any part of the article that they wish to leave unchanged that the other editor wants to change. If so, please state concisely what you want to change (or leave the same). Please agree to the rules, and answer the two questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC) The case was resolved. I have withdraw my claim. It was a self-publication book and thus it was not fact-check by any book editor (like peoples who know less on the subject than the authors themselves in most of the case; anyway since there is a detailled source list inside it is easy for one to fact-check by himself), contrary to other book (who probably were fact-checked decades ago when they were published, before new infos were discovered in the meantime by Bond's archeologian that challenged the veracity of some of their part and rendered them obsoletes today. But since it is apparently more okay...). So I'm not gonna spend more time on that matter. All I wished to change was in my initial edit which was reverted. I tried to correct the situation, a 100% false information like the exemple I gave on the talk was was deemed more suitable than a "unreliable" one (and unrealiable mean that it is "maybe" false, but also maybe true, a 50% chance of true was better than a 100% of false in my mind). I did my job, tried to correct things at my level, now if the system doesn't sustain (and it probably work at most case). We will continue to see people basing text on false info contained in some Wikipedia article, like the post I saw just yesterday on Twitter that was saying Dr. No was a monkey in an early script. It is false, a least 4 different authors showed it, I even corrected it last week on Dr No page before Shrocats reverted it to the original eroned text). So if humanity don't want to be saved, why should I care anymore: I did my possible, now I might as well watching it burnt. Whatever false informations will be continued to be consired as true and spread as it, will not be my reponsability. Now the responsability is in your hands Shrocat since you will handle a rewrite of the page as I understood. Hope you will prove worthy of it. Moneyofpropre (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Thunderball) 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.

Repressed memory

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NpsychC on 22:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Repressed memory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved NpsychC (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Hob Gadling (talk · contribs) Zenomonoz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The first three paragraphs in this article are currently misleading. It contains factually incorrect and unsupported assertions. The discussion to try to update the article is no longer productive and the other editors are often feeling attacked by me. Attempts to have the discussion based on content and the evidence base continually revert back to process. I have been shut down with accusations of presenting a fringe view, dishonesty, and denigrating other editors. I was advised to go back to the talk page, only to face accusations of trolling, and assertions that I appear obsessed (which is a fair observation and why sought DR initially). Responses to criticism about the changes proposed are being shut down, and current scientific evidence is being ignored or told the point I am making is WP:OR. This page is the second website when googling the term and so the misinformation is concerning. The standard being asked of me is much higher than the standard of research behind the current bias in the article. I am presenting evidence from reputable sources in the medical and psychiatric field. Blocking the inclusion of a whole raft of evidence that supports recovered memories continues the bias and fails to provide a neutral point of view. In reading through the archives it is clear that many people with specialised knowledge in the field have also provided evidence to bring the article up to date and remove the bias, only to have these changes not be made. Support to navigate this dispute would be appreciated and if Wikipedia articles are not based on science I'd like to know so I can stop wasting everyone's time. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Repressed_memory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#c-Remsense-20240929234700-NpsychC-20240929234000 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps some help to bring the discussion back to the content, and to understand if the Wikipedia culture is for psychology related articles to be evidence-based and scientifically sound. Also some insight into editorial processes as the way I have been treated hasn't assumed I am acting in good faith at all, despite all the work I have done to respond to the criticisms. I am genuinely confused by what is happening and I think an impartial review of the discussion would be helpful. 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 Hob Gadling Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Zenomonoz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Repressed memory 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.

Asian fetish

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ShinyAlbatross on 19:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Asian fetish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ShinyAlbatross (talk · contribs) KSDerek (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've been locked in a dispute with User:KSDerek for a number of weeks now, and unfortunately, it has (largely) been just the two of us. There is no end in sight. I began by reading everything there was to do with the article, and I found a very high proportion of false and misleading content. I posted my findings on the talk page, and after a few days, I began major edits. KSDerek then began debating the edits with me. The dispute was sprawling and wide-ranging, but probably the biggest point of contention is the mention of a connection to violence in the article. The connection has been written about by high-quality, academic, secondary sources, and a countering opinion does not exist in a high quality source to my knowledge. Nonetheless KSDerek is relentless in trying to argue semantics about the subject. (Note that a rotating IP user previously participated - I have been informed by a checkuser that this user is most likely not coming back for some unspecified reason) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? My initial posts reviewing the quality of this article: Talk:Asian_fetish#Poor_quality_of_information Talk:Asian_fetish#Critique_of_section:_"Pornography" Talk:Asian_fetish#Critique_of_section:_"Psychological_effects_of_fetishization" Talk:Asian_fetish#Critique_of_section:_"History" Talk:Asian_fetish#Critique_of_section:_"International_Marriage" Subsequent discussion: Talk:Asian_fetish#Regarding_recent_edits Talk:Asian_fetish#Changes_on_Sep_30_-_notes How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I can't think of a conduct issue KSDerek isn't violating in this discussion. He has insulted me, made frivolous arguments, refused to get the point, is pushing a POV, and at this point is just wasting as much of my time as possible. I hate to ask for an intervention here again but it's just so plainly obvious that KSDerek is not interested in writing an article based on high-quality sources and instead just wants the article to agree with him. Summary of dispute by KSDerek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Asian fetish 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:Karima Gouit

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TahaKahi on 13:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Talk:Karima Gouit (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved TahaKahi (talk · contribs) Skitash (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have been working on updating the Wikipedia page for Karima Gouit, a singer, activist, and businesswoman, in an effort to reflect the full scope of her career and heritage. Her page was created years ago when she was still rising in fame through music talent shows. However, as she began leading her father’s company, she took on projects that showcase her Amazigh heritage, including creating Tamazight songs and participating in events and concerts celebrating her culture. Today, her Amazigh identity is an integral part of her brand, as reflected in her social media presence. My aim was to update the article by adding her name’s translation into Tamazight and including her Amazigh descent, which I believe is relevant to her public persona. I also edited the music genres section to better reflect her current output, which heavily includes Tamazight songs. Even her Arabic songs often incorporate Tamazight. This edit was based on the guidance of Wikipedia’s WP , which states that ethnic background is relevant if it contributes to the subject’s notability. Karima’s Amazigh heritage, especially as she promotes it in her work, is undeniably linked to her public identity. However, my initial edit lacked some citations, which I acknowledge was a mistake. CoffeeCrumbs kindly explained the need for more rigorous sourcing, particularly direct quotes from Karima herself on her use of Tamazight in her music. I have since revised the edit in response to this feedback, but I should have made the connection to her work clearer and included additional citations. Despite these revisions, Skitash reverted the changes, and after several attempts to discuss it with him on the talk page, it became clear that he does not want any Amazigh-related content to be included. Even when I provided citations, he continued to cite WP:ETHNICITY, and WP:OR much of her own content has limited citations, and many of the available references directly support the Amazigh aspects of her work. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I engaged in a discussion with Skitash on the article’s talk page for a few days. I tried to explain that his citation rules do not apply in this case, as her heritage is directly related to her fame. I also requested the inclusion of her Arabic name, as it seems Skitash is avoiding this aspect, given his continued issues with any Amazigh-related content on the page. The conversation can be seen here: How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I’m reaching out to find a more constructive resolution, possibly through mediation, as I’ve encountered similar issues with him in the past. We both want the article to reflect the full scope of Karima Gouit’s career, but I believe that this issue is being approached too narrowly, without considering the relevance of her heritage to her notability. I’m open to hearing other perspectives and would like to come to a mutual agreement that accurately represents Karima Gouit’s identity and work. Summary of dispute by Skitash Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There's an ongoing discussion on Talk:Karima Gouit and it's pretty clear that at least two or three editors are opposing TahaKahi's proposed changes. The editor is insisting that we assert that Karima Gouit is Berber in the lead, contrary to MOS:ETHNICITY that states that ethnicity should not be included in the lead. Furthermore, they have cited WP:UNDUE sources (I'm not entirely sure if they're reliable), such as Facebook, to assert that she made songs in Berber and come to the conclusion that her Berber identity is relevant to her notability. This all seems like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure where I should discuss this, but this user clearly seems to be an WP:SPA or a sockpuppet. Taking into consideration the fact that their first edit was nearly identical to an edit by some other editor who contributed to Safi, Morocco and got blocked, their familiarity with userboxes and Babel, and Wikiprojects, this user doesn't seem to be a novice editor. Skitash (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Talk:Karima Gouit 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.

2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by AmitKumarDatta180 on 16:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

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 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AmitKumarDatta180 (talk · contribs) TheNeutrality (talk · contribs) Za-ari-masen (talk · contribs) CosmLearner (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the article editor says indian news spreading misinformation. They don't give reliable source. All of the articles they given discuss some rumors being circulated on Twitter and Facebook. Nowhere has it been stated that the Indian media is publishing false news. But in talk page enough logic given why "India media spreading disinformation" should removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Bangladesh_anti-Hindu_violence How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can give a neutral point of view & request other editors to not revert the edit. Summary of dispute by TheNeutrality Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Za-ari-masen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CosmLearner Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note: The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Please do so. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Volunteer Note: The filing editor has created an RfC regarding this dispute. Generally we don't accept disputes at DRN if it is already pending at another forum (an RfC in this case), but I'll wait a bit to see what happens to this RfC (if it gets closed, we can continue here; if not, I'll close this DRN request). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 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.

Hypnosis

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Skalidrisalba on 18:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Hypnosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Skalidrisalba (talk · contribs) Bon courage (talk · contribs) Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs) HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I proposed a new edit with a new reference that I found more relevant (the old reference was not about hypnosis) and less misleading. Because my reference was published in a journal called "complementary therapies in clinical practices", many users started associating the term "complementary" to "alternative medicine" (as in medicine that is not based on evidence) without checking if the journal is actually following a rigorous and accepted method. I am partially responsible for that because I didn't know "alternative" implied the lack of evidence and I erroneously called the journal I was referring to as "alternative". Users started trying to remove old references that contained that word that would, according to them, discredit the whole methodology Please help, I feel like I've just triggered a wave of people who start discarding information and references simply because they use certain words they don't like... How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hypnosis#Compromise_on_the_claim_that_hypnosis_is_pseudoscience How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'm new to being an editor, so I don't know specifically what you can and cannot do. But simply a message to remind users that a word used in the name of a journal is not enough to discredit a reference... And to ask them to provide elements that are specific to the reference and that discredit it instead of relying on generalizations. Summary of dispute by Bon courage Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Psychologist Guy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HandThatFeeds Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Hypnosis discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on the user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 October 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.

Algeria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Monsieur Patillo on 13:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC).

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 Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Monsieur Patillo (talk · contribs) Skitash (talk · contribs) Dispute overview During a previous DRN then RFC it was ultimately decided not to put anything in infobox. However, the plurality of sources should be able to be found in the Section on ethnic groups in the body of the article Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 248. During which the following commitment was made: Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria) If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources, and the only issue remaining is what should be included in the infobox. There are three options: 1. The current state: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others 2. 99% Amazigh-Berber, 1% other 3. Nothing. However Skitash blocked the article. There is no counterproposal from him because he seems satisfied with the current version which contains a POV: the ethnicity of the Algerians would be linked to a medieval Arab migration and not the Arabization of the natives. This is a guiding idea that we find in his contributions: - Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb#Demographics, where demography is linked to Arab migrations (and not the Arabization of locals). - Algerians#Ethnic_groups Without respect to WP:NPOV, Skitash repeatedly pushes an editorial that could mislead the reader and make him believe that the population of Algeria and the Maghreb came from a migration from the Arab peninsula. If he concedes in the discussions that he is basing himself on ethnicity, he prevents any addition specifying that it is the Berbers who have become Arabized and that certain sources speak of Berber ethnicity or Arab-Berber to favor only the vision of a majority Arab ethnicity and without nuance. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Algeria#Blocking_the_article_(infobox_and_ethnic_group_section) : Following the previous review I opened the discussion when Skitash deleted my modifications. I reminded him of his commitments in the previous DRN, without success. I asked him to formulate a counterproposal without response from him... How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can help resolve the argument by: - recalling the terms of the previous mediation andfind common ground with a formulation that takes into account the plurality of sources - sort by identifying serious academic sources on the subject -avoid WP:OR (the majority of Arabs come from Arab migrations), and WP:UNDUE, to restore academic information on the subject (Arabization of indigenous Berber populations, an element that Skitash makes a point of concealing) . Summary of dispute by Skitash Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Algeria discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello! Non-volunteer here. I would like to point out that this person, Skitash, is also in a dispute with me over the same subject, the inclusion of Amazigh/Berber content and the attempt to keep things unbiased and also . He seems to be making a strong effort to portray anything related to Amazigh as anti-Arab, turning the inclusion of their language under MOS:LEADLANG into an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND. This isn’t the first time he has been in disputes with multiple people due to his bias and hostile approach toward articles related to Berbers, including his violation of WP:NPOV. For instance, in his revision of Berberism, he frames the movement as anti-Arab, as seen in this revision: . This kind of bias is evident throughout the page, with much of the writing coming from Skitash himself." TahaKahi (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Hello. The DRN is not a settling of scores. It is about dealing with a particular article (Algeria) and not talking about other subjects (languages, Berberism, etc.). Kind regards, Monsieur Patillo (talk) 09:14, 10 October 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.