Knowledge

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:Malayalam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nagadeepa (talk · contribs)
• Hyper9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Debate on origins of Malayalam

There has been heated arguments on the Malayalam page. One editor Hyper9 is consistently deleting referenced arguments and distorting an accurate scientific source (S.V Shanmugam) to promote his fringe views (That Malayalam has an independent origin from Tamil). 3rd party assistance is needed to maintain an accurate history of the language.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted reasoned discussion on talk page to no avail. Attempted to hold a dispute resolution a few days ago which was unilaterally abrogated by Hyper9. Hyper9 has now agreed to take part in the process, provided that the discussion is solely focused on the arguments and not his personal character or behaviour.

How do you think we can help?

An independent mediator to ensure that scientific sources are not distorted and wilfully misinterpreted.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Discussion at this noticeboard is always about article content. It is never about editor behavior, let alone editor character. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - I do not intend to act as a moderator or mediator for this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Noted the above. Mediation is the wrong word. There is a dispute that needs to be resolved in order to ensure that Knowledge is accurate and not parroting fringe theories. Especially false theories which have been jettisoned by more serious scholars in the literature. Unfortunately, Hyper9 has been repeatedly deleting all my referenced edits which reflect the mainstream view and true history. This is unacceptable. This can only be sorted out with 3rd party input.

Nagadeepa (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Nagadeepa - If mediation is the wrong word for what you want, then you may be at the wrong noticeboard. Mediation is what this noticeboard does. The purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate moderated discussion with the objective of achieving compromise on article content. If you want to discuss article content in order to work out satisfactory compromise, this is a reasonable place. If you have some other objective, you may need to go somewhere else. If you and Hyper9 both want mediation, I would suggest formal mediation, a long careful process. If you think that Hyper9 is being tendentious or otherwise disruptive, or is trying to advance fringe theories, you may report them at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. The latter is likely to be more effective, and may be swift and draconian. Those are probably your choices, formal mediation, or arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I will probably be closing this thread in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man. You clearly have good command of the English language yet you act like you cannot read. I suspect you are cunningly playing dumb. I am afraid I will have to report you as Robert has suggested. You have consistently distorted the accurate source by Shanmugam. Shanmugam clearly indicates that Govindakutty's fringe theory is untenable when he quotes Ayyar's work. This is absolutely clear to anyone with basic English who reads that section. Anyway I have given up trying to get through to you (like the many before me) and will have to report you. I am not happy that it had to come to this. Nagadeepa (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment – @Robert McClenon: please see Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hyper9 filed by Nagadeepa, seems this has gone to another noticeboard. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (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.

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:Kalki Koechlin#Nationality (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mark the train (talk · contribs)
• Wisi eu (talk · contribs)
• Kailash29792 (talk · contribs)
• Numerounovedant (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The nationality of an actor, Kalki Koechlin, has been the subject of edits and reverts from time to time. She has been mentioned as holding a French passport in a French magazine, Ouest. Indian sources 'India Today' and 'The Hindu' mention her Indian citizenship as quoted by the actress herself. All these three sources are from around 2015-16 and finding more reliable sources to support either stance has been an issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A notice at WikiProject India didn't attract any comments, while another discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Numerounovedant#Nationality_of_Kalki_Koechlin in January was inconclusive.

How do you think we can help?

Getting more editors involved to reach a consensus can help resolve the issue (perhaps someone who has a much detailed understanding of citizenship laws). On consensus, an editnotice can be placed so that the nationality in several parts of the article isn't meddled with henceforth.

Kalki Koechlin, an actress, has stated in an interview that she has a *French passport only* for travel purposes, stating that the country she lives and works in did not allow her to take dual nationality. Hence the corrections on her EN wiki page. User: Wisi_eu 13 Feb. 2018 - 16:03 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer note: There has been adequate discussion and notice. However, I'm neither "taking" this nor opening it for discussion. Indeed, I won't be taking it (or participating as a party to the dispute). I have given an "Nth Opinion" at the article talk page noting that much or all the current discussion is attempting to reach a conclusion which could be in violation of the no original research policy if included in the article. If the volunteer who takes the case agrees with that assessment, then my suggestion would be to close this request with a recommendation that discussion pick back up at the article talk page taking the no original research policy into consideration. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Now that the editors have had time to review the reminder of TransporterMan about original research, which includes all speculation as to Koechlin's reasons for what passport she uses and what else she does, do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion about verifiable content? If there is no response (or negative response), it will be concluded that this thread can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2018 (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.

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:Banderites (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yulia Romero (talk · contribs)
• Poeticbent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to prevent what I see as Knowledge:Content forking at the Knowledge article Banderites but this attempt quickly became an edit war....

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Poeticbent did not respond to me when I contacted him on his talkpage and does not explain why his edits are not content forking

How do you think we can help?

I basically want to know if the current (Saturday 17 February 2018) "History section at Banderites is content forking or not.

---

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.

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:Priya Prakash Varrier#Alleged insult to Mohammad incident (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I wish to add pertinent well sourced information to an article that is at AfD, the other editor has removed it once and disagrees its inclusion, even after I took his objections to the use of the word "controversy" into account. His objections do not appear to be based on logic to me. The draft is as follows, in italics

"A FIR was registered by the Hyderabad police against Varrier, on a complaint filed by a youth for allegedly insulting Mohammad the founder of Islam, in relation to the viral video in which she appears. The Raza Academy has asked Smriti Irani, India's Information and Broadcasting central minister, for a ban on the said song in which Varrier appears, claiming it is derogatory to Mohammad and his "pious wife", they demanded that the song be censored. A protest was arranged by them outside Mumbai's Minara Masjid. Kerala chief minister, Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the complaint and the resulting controversy, terming the matter a manifestation of unacceptable intolerance. Warrier has petitioned the Supreme Court of India seeking that the FIR be cancelled."

I propose that a section be created, with the same tittle as this section. However I am not stuck up about the separate section bit or any word/words being changed as long as the four stages are covered, (1)the FIR, (2)demands by Raza Academy, (3) opposition by Vijayan (4)Supreme Court petition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss over the past six days, I tried to explain that the content is directly related to the subject and not extraneous as alleged.

How do you think we can help?

Other non-involved editors may share there views and perhaps mediate

---

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.

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

• User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Nisha Rawal (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A145029 (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I want to add Nisha Rawal ethnicity. The link I provided says that her current husband says that she is of a particular ethnicity, which I think is a reasonable proof of what ethnicity she is, but this user is saying it is not

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion

How do you think we can help?

Please tell who's right and who's wrong

---

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.

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

• User talk:Fylindfotberserk#Lakhanis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• A145029 (talk · contribs)
• Fylindfotberserk (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I want to add two links to Sultan Ali Lakhani about his birthplace and ethnicity and one link to Iqbal Ali Lakhani about his ethnicity, but this user is using lots of biased arguments to prevent this

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We discussed about it.

How do you think we can help?

Please tell who is right and who is wrong

---

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.

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:Scientific consensus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jamesmsnead (talk · contribs)
• DVdm (talk · contribs)
• J. Johnson (JJ) (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The stated definition of what constitutes a "scientific consensus" is based on citation (1). The cited source does not, from my review, comply with the Knowledge guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable citation. The cited source is an organization's website that has, without authorship, created the cited definition to, as stated in the "about" page, advance their political position. This is not an authoritative academic source or a publisher's definition as required by the guidelines. I believe the citation should be removed. Others do not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion has only brought derisive comments against me.

How do you think we can help?

The citation used should be reviewed to determine if it complies faithfully with the Knowledge guidelines.

---

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.

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:Medri Bahri (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Sections Talk:Medri Bahri#Ethiopian-Bias_in_Article Talk:Medri Bahri#MerabMillash(MedriBahri)_1870s-1890_(More_Notables_and_Events_then_1879)

Users involved

• LeGabrie (talk · contribs)
• Uknowofwiki (talk · contribs)
• François Robere (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It's about Medri Bahri, a historical political entity with its center in the Eritrean highlands. One side believes that it came effectively to an end in 1879, when its last lord, Woldemichael Solomon, was imprisoned and an Ethiopian governor, Ras Alula, seized power. He remained the de facto and de jure ruler of the Eritrean highlands until 1889, when he was expelled by Eritrean guerillas and the Italians. The other side claims that this was not the end of Medri Bahri as a political entity, as relatives of Woldemichael continued their resistance against Ras Alula as guerialls, especially since 1885. Therefore the end date of Medri Bahri should be given as 1890, when the Italians declared the region as part of Italian Eritrea, plus Italian Eritrea should be named as successor in the infobox.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Requested and received third opinion, discussing with an admin.

How do you think we can help?

By deciding which side is correct.

I've been asked to opine to the matter through WP:3O, then later through my talk page. My analysis of the matter can be seen on the article's talk page. In short: the sources provided thus far support the conclusion that the kingdom of Medri Bahri ceased to exist in 1979 with the imprisonment of the king and the instillment of an Ethiopian governor in his place. I suspect some of the disagreement stems from a misunderstanding of the difference between the kingdom - the political entity - and the realm - the geographic expanse it once occupied; one of the sides may have seen the former used as a synonym for the latter - in the same way one might use the name of a historical duchy to refer to the region in once occupied - and resents the suggestion it lost its independence to a rivaling state. However the sources name both, and are clear as to which is which; which continued to exist through the Ethiopian rule, and which didn't. François Robere (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2018 (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.

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:Near-death experience (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Perky28 (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Skeptic from Britain (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

About a month ago, I was shocked to see the total disappearance of S. L. Thaler’s research from the WP page on near-death experience, along with all its supporting references. Knowing that for years this article has included his work, and then reading the personal attacks on its talk page, I was especially motivated to reintroduce his research. Then, after two reversions involving Jytdog, I attempted a compromise, simply adding references to the article so that readers would have the option to dig deeper into this highly relevant research. However, even that minor edit was rejected by Jytdog, who seems steadfastly resistant to any mention whatsoever of Thaler in this article.

The irony is that the page cites the Journal of Near-Death Studies three times, as a primary sources for other researchers, but for some reason Thaler's peer-reviewed papers in this same journal are disallowed by Jytdog. Also, an article by a staff reporter for Scientific American serves as a secondary source in this article. However, for Thaler, a similar article doesn't even qualify as valid.

Jytdog also disqualifies Thaler's peer-reviewed, secondary and primary sources out of Elsevier. I would think the papers' merit and relevance had already been determined prior to their publication by experts in the field.

Other editors, such as Skeptical Brit, dismisses (with prejudice) a published article in Elsevier's most selective neural network journal, Neural Networks, simply calling it weird, and then deleting it.

Jytdog, the SciAm article was published in the cellulose magazine, with another following in 1995, not just in archival html. Obviously there are different perspectives on the topic of NDE, and if one camp wants to dominate, they purposely leave out contradictory work. Besides, the Atlantic article was incomplete, possibly to widen the article's appeal among its non-mathematical readership. In the meantime, more thorough authors have repeatedly mentioned Thaler's work. The point is that the Thaler model is agnostic to brain anatomy, and discusses the phenomenon from first principles, namely non-linear switching elements (i.e., neurons) and synaptic integration. The argument typically goes over the head of the general public, but hardly a reason to obliterate all Thaler content and references. And with all DUE respect, the merit of his work has already been determined by peer review by some very reputable journals. Perky28 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried, without success, to engage Jytdog on the article's talk page to seek a resolution.

How do you think we can help?

Neutral parties are needed to judge the validity of the references used in what was once the long-standing Computational Psychology section of this article.

I think we need to get clarity on where everybody is coming from before we can turn and address content. I am still awaiting a response to this. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On the content issue, Perky keeps citing primary sources by Thaler, and an editorial rebutting Thaler. There was a hm! report in scientific american back in 1993 (see JSTOR 24941474 but if you look at sources providing authoritative overviews of NDE (say PMID 25357254, called "Almost 40 years investigating near-death experiences: an overview of mainstream scientific journals.", nor in the recent book ISBN 978-0-06-177725-7, or to grab something easy, this popular summary in the Atlantic) this "AI as a model for NDE" stuff isn't mentioned. Perky has been nonresponsive on this essential point. What that means is that this is UNDUE. I of course remain open to seeing sources about NDE generally that discuss this so that we can see that it is given WEIGHT by people in the field.

This is the typical problem we have conflicted or advocacy editors - wanting to give UNDUE emphasis to pet theories (their own or those of others), but I haven't been able to have that discussion as the OP is not engaging. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified one of the other editors but not the other listed editor. Also, an additional editor who is not listed took part in the talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2018 (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.

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

• Kulala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Swati salian (talk · contribs)
• sitush (talk · contribs)
• NeilN (talk · contribs)
• justmangalore (talk · contribs)
• Roshani kulal (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a page where false reference book is given to the contents as reliable source and original page given by author is whitewashed. Now even page is blocked from editing. Below is the reference book

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to talk on this matter .Many different users tried to solve the dispute but still not rectified. Please revert the kulala page back to original.

How do you think we can help?

Please revert the kulala page back to original. Or else remove the disputed contents from the page which is false.

Adding disruptive information in the article ------"This has historically meant that they were the lowest-ranked of the Shudra castes in the Hindu varna system".

Blocking the article and users even if they try to talk in well behaved manner.

lack of patience on the matter

---

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.

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

• User talk:Diannaa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Norristown State Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HerbiePocket (talk · contribs)
• Diannaa (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been attempting to resolve some of the issues with the article for Norristown State Hospital. This Administrator lays claims the the entirity of my edits have been pulled from an outside source, Asylum Projects (where I composed a separate article). In doing so she reverted the article to its prior form. I have made the request from her to remove all the portions of the article that she feels are problematic, but to keep those sections that are not. She wrongly claims that the whole of the article is taken from an outside source, and refuses to make the restoration of any text. This can be easily determined with a cursory glance, as the article in question has several sections that have no parallel on Asylum Projects.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This issue was discussed with Diannaa, but she remains firm in her decision to remove the page and freeze its content.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to see some arbitration take place, or at the very least, a second opinion regarding the nature of this dispute. The content in question seems ipse dixit. Ultimately, I would like the non-disputed material restored, as I had originally requested.

---

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.

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

• Bareun Future Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kiteinthewind (talk · contribs)
• Garam (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Garam has insisted the article be named Bareunmirae Party, based on sources that are in Korean, not English. I renamed the article to Bareun Future Party, based on English sources in South Korea, and based on established conventions here. However, Garam has insisted that we rename the article, renaming it numerous times, and now accusing me of disruption.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have cited all relevant rules and articles with Garam, numerous times.

How do you think we can help?

A third party needs to step in to enforce established conventions on Knowledge, and remind Garam, once again in the milieu of times, that rules need to be followed here.

---

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.

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

• Transylvanian peasant revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Borsoka (talk · contribs)
• Rgvis (talk · contribs)
• Seraphim System (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Rgvis says that the article Transylvanian peasant revolt is unbalanced and disputes its neutrality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I sought assistance from Wikiproject:Romania and from Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I also changed the text, taking into account suggestions from members of the latter noticeboard, but Rqvis still maintains his/her view. All my attempts to persuade him to explain his/her concerns have failed, because he/she accusses me of misconduct and refers to "other editors" who allegedly share his/her concerns. I involved Seraphim System because Rgvis accuses me of changing his/her edits.

How do you think we can help?

I do not know. I hope you will know. Thank you for your assistance.

It does look like a response was inserted in the middle of my comment, but this could have been a good faith error. It did not alter my comment. Beyond that, I don't remember much about this dispute and I was only briefly involved so I am not sure how much help I will be, but I am willing to participate if it would be helpful. Seraphim System 16:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. I would be grateful if you could participate in the resolution process. Borsoka (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The posting at the neutral point of view noticeboard has been closed without resolution, so that the filing here is the only current effort to resolve this dispute. The filing party has notified the other parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Are the editors willing to have moderated discussion in which they focus on article content and not on each other? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Thank you for your moderation. Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What part of "Are the editors willing to have moderated discussion in which they focus on article content and not on each other?" do I need to restate or rework? If there is a behavioral problem, this is not the place to discuss it. However, the discussion of content is sometimes more useful than back-and-forth discussions of conduct. Are the editors willing to comment on content and not on contributors, or does this need to go to a conduct forum, where it is likely to be closed inconclusively? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After 3 months of discussions, I personally think that the main issue in this case is not the content, but rather a behavioral problem. When I made contributions on this article (in accordance with all Knowledge rules), I was reverted by Borsoka without any explanation (references included). Then, when I asked for explanations, Borsoka came up with all sorts of pretexts (which turned out to be ungrounded): first, "Copyright violations", when it was obviously that the contributions were based on the "Fair use" principle (which stays at the base of the so many Knowledge articles' content); then, the content added was labeled as "fringe theory" and the authors of the works cited (reputed Romanian, Britain, American, etc. historians) as not reliable (or even "too old" - very funny assumption, in this context). In the opinion of Borsoka, only the authors accepted by the Hungarian POV are credible, and should be mentioned and cited. Well, here is a problem, because Knowledge project is governed (or, at least, it should be) by different fundamental principles (NPOV included). Yes, no doubt that the content of this article could and should (soon or later) be improved, in order to reflect all historical POV. But, the question is: Is this article open for contributions from other editors, or not? (Rgvis (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)) I do not want to disprove each statement made by Rgvis, because I would like to settle the issue (Those who are interested in the issue can read the whole story on the article's talk page.) @Rgvis:. (1) Yes, I still think that Sedlar's POV is a marginal (rather fringe) theory, but it was included in the article based on the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. What is your problem with it? (2) Yes, I think that Setton-Wattson's book, which was published in 1934, should not be cited, especially because you have not referred to a single modern reliable source which verifies that his claims are still valid. Please remember that other editors - Only in death and Loesorion - were also sceptical as to whether such an old source could be used (). Could you mention other editors who think that Setton-Wattson's book should be cited in the article? (3) Could you link my statements about other "reputed Romanian, Britain and American historians" proving that I denied to refer to them? Borsoka (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (1) Good for you, but WP:NOT. (2) Yes, an example would be: page 23/33. On the other hand, regardless of the intimate opinion of editors, Knowledge is not the place to judge or contest the activity of historians, not to say, the well-known ones + , whose works are still published: , and still appreciated nowadays by the scientific communities: (3) Review all your past actions of deleting references. (Rgvis (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC))

• Volunteer note - Do the editors want to engage in moderated discussion of content only, without commenting on conduct or each other? Sometimes resolving the content issue, whether by mediation or otherwise, will end the conduct issues or at least permit the conduct issues to subside, but this noticeboard is only for the discussion of article content. If the editors will discuss content, a volunteer moderator will mediate. (If the editors want to talk about conduct, this is the wrong place and/or the wrong time.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would be willing to participate in the discussion as well, but it would be helpful for me also if editors agree to just focus on content and sources here. The volunteers here can not resolve conduct issues - but I think it is a good idea to at least try this discussion first and ANI may not be necessary - sometimes it is better to try to AGF and start over to work through a content dispute.Seraphim System 02:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer inquiry - User:Rgvis - Are you willing to take part in discussion here that is limited to article content (and perhaps civil discussion of article content can avoid the need to focus on conduct)? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem (although it wouldn't be the first time, in this case), we can try again (patiently, due to time constraints). (Rgvis (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC))

Okay. I will try to mediate this dispute. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. Comment on content only, and not on contributors. Be civil and concise. Take note of the rule that you are expected to reply to my requests for inputs every 48 hours. (I see a mention of time constraints. If you cannot respond within 48 hours, it may be necessary to close this case, and formal mediation, which can take months, may work better.) Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are with regard to what should be in the article? (Talk only about the article, not about the process or the editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with the revision of the name of Vlachs to that of Romanians, in general context. (Rgvis (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC))

Thank you for your suggestion. Why do you think, the replacement of the Vlach ethnonym is necessary? Please note that two "neutral" historians cited in the article (Joseph Held and Jean W. Sedlar) insist on the use of the Vlach ethnonym in the context. Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment in the section for statements by editors. Reply only to the moderator and not to each other.

It appears that the only real issue is whether to use the ethnonym 'Vlach' or 'Romanians'. Is that correct? If so, please justify your position on the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As the moderator, I am neutral, but I need to be persuaded that it is necessary to change the ethnonym. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is only the first issue.

Why "Romanian" instead "Vlach":

• standard recommendation, as per WP:NCET
• the historian's explanation: ,
• to avoid any confusion with the contemporary meaning of "Vlach":

As for Jean W. Sedlar, she does not insist on the use of any term ("Romanian" or "Vlach", "Hungarian" or "Magyar", etc): .

(Rgvis (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC))

An editor states above, "This is only the first issue", about changing a denonym. I had asked the editors to identify the issues, not to identify one issue at a time. Will each editor please identify all of the issues that they think need to be addressed? If it is necessary to provide a long list of issues, provide a long list of issues, but, if so, I may find it necessary to refer this dispute to formal mediation, a lengthy and careful process. Please state what the issues as to article content are. Be civil, and as concise as possible. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• the introductory section is ambiguous in terms of some important aspects of the presented event (such as the ethnic component of peasants, or the location of the uprising), but, on the other hand, it abounds in some rather too detailed (and marginal) information for this part of the article;
• the "Background" section superficially treats the history of the Transylvanian Romanians (of all social classes) and almost ignores the religious aspects of the presented context;
• the "Peasant war" section does not mention essential aspects of the uprising, like the calling for the establishment and recognition of the Universitas Hungarorum et Valachorum - Estate of Hungarians and Romanians; it also selectively uses information from some referenced sources;
• the "Aftermath" section does not sufficiently emphasize on the historical consequences of the presented events in terms of social and political life of Transylvania for the next centuries;

PS: it would still be useful for the moderator to express his point of view on the first mentioned issue. (Rgvis (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC))

• Regarding use of "Vlach" my main objection to the term is that it is not widely known, and no arguments have been given for why the distinction is necessary. If it doesn't add anything, then I think the most widely recognizable term should be used for the benefit of readers who are not expected to be familiar with specialized terminology. Seraphim System 08:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

We have a list of four or five issues that one of the editors think should be addressed. This noticeboard is normally for relatively simple content disputes that take one week to two weeks to resolve, not for ones that have multiple aspects that go on for weeks or months. I have several options. The first and least intrusive would be to put this case on hold and see if the editors can work collaboratively on the article talk page to improve the article. The second would be for the editors to make a list of issues that they think should be addressed, and then have a multi-part Request for Comments that will run for 30 days (after this case is closed as taken to the RFC). The third will be for the editors to agree to formal mediation. I would like to ask the editors to give three-part Yes-No answers, to whether they are willing to use each of the three options. By the way, if you say No to any of the three options, please indicate concisely why. I don't like it isn't adequate. To restate one of the original rules, you are expected to reply within 48 hours, and it would be helpful to reply in 24 to 36 hours. Which of the methods of proceeding are agreeable? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (I would prefer option 1, because the opening of new procedures could be time-consuming.) Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, no problem (Y/Y/Y). (Rgvis (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC))

I will suspend the rules against back-and-forth discussion and against editing the article. Discuss the article here; edit the article when consensus on any particular point is reached. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If this method of working together to improve the article works, good. If there is incivility, I may give one warning, or I may fail the moderation. If anyone needs a neutral comment, I will be here; otherwise, just keep working, but be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:, my primary concern about the term "Romanian" is that it is strictly connected to a state (Romania) which came into being in 1859, centuries after the events discussed in the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No. The term also refers to a language which is derived from the Roman (Latin) language, and to the people who speak this language, and the term has been used for centuries. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rgvis:, why do you think that 16th-century Italian authors' remarks about the Vlachs' ethnonym are relevant in connection with an article in English WP about a 15th-century event? Please also remember that Sedlar exclusively uses the term Vlach when writing about the revolt (, page 404). Taking into account that the neutrality of the article is debated, because it allegedly prefers the "Hungarian POV" (whatever it is), I think we should prefer the terminology of neutral (non-Hungarian and non-Romanian) scholars. Held and Sedlar are neutral scholars and Held dedicated a whole article to the events discussed in the article (he uses the variant Wlach). Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's about ethnicity and not the nation state. Anyhow, among the English authors there is no such rule to use predominantly the word "vlach". (see above the "Second statements by editors" section). (Rgvis (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Do you say that there are neutral authors who use the term "Romanian" in the context of the article? Who are they? Please remember that I demonstrated above that Sedlar uses exclusively this term when writing about the revolt even if she says that Romanian and Vlach could be used as a synonyms (she uses the term Vlach at least 5 times in a short text about the revolt). Held even implies that the use of the term Romanian would be anachronistic in the context of the Transylvanian peasant rebellion (He emphasizes that the Vlachs were only later called Romanians in his English monography about the revolt). Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I need some guidance from you. Rgvis said that he regarded the article unbalanced because it "is heavily based on the positions of authors affiliated to the Hungarian historiography". Now, we are debating a term which is not used by Hungarian scholars, but neutral authors. Moreover, he refers to 15th-century Italian scholars' view on the Vlachs' ethnonym. How could we continue the issue? Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I was not expecting to be asked repeatedly to adjudicate issues about the neutrality of terms based on old sources, in what is evidently only the first of several issues. If it will repeatedly be necessary for a neutral party to rule on the neutrality of material, you need the longer and more intensive process of formal mediation. The term Romanian to refer to a people and a language predates the Romanian nation. See Romanian language, whose name means that its people are of Roman origin and that their language is derived from Roman (Latin). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the editors work this out themselves, or will it be necessary to request formal mediation? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, if you do not have time to regularly mediate, I think we should seek assistance at an other forum. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of time so much as the type of mediation required. If there is only one issue, I can mediate. If, as was mentioned above, this is not the only issue, and the are others, mediation will take longer. I will comment that the views of scholars from earlier centuries (earlier than the late twentieth) are normally considered less reliable than more recent scholars except on matters of older historiography or when there is no recent historiography. Will the editors please explain their views on "Vlach" or "Romanian"? Will the editors please list all of the issues that should be mediated? If there are multiple issues, we will have to go to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the ethnonym is out of the scope of the neutrality issue which is the subject of this dispute. The term "Vlach" is exclusively based on works written by neutral (not Hungarian) historians, not "on the position of authors affiliated to the Hungarian historiography". Of course, it can be discussed separately, on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

We will start all over at the beginning. Will each editor please state, in bullet form, what all of the issues are that they think need to be addressed? Then we can decide whether moderated discussion here will be useful or whether another forum is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2018 (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.

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:2018 Hong Kong bus accident#Condolences (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Citobun (talk · contribs)
• 223.89.144.195 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is quite simple which is to whether to remove the the "Mainland Chinese government" section in the article 2018_Hong_Kong_bus_accident (see one of the disputed edits). The other user "Citobun" insists that the content of this section is "inconsequential" and "propagandistic" and should thus be removed. Whilst I believe that that section should be kept.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss this isuue with the other user in the talkpage. Unfortunately we two simply cannot reach a consensus and still adhere to our own views.

How do you think we can help?

Give us a third-party and neutral opinion so that we can resolve it.

This Beijing IP (as well as 223.104.19.131, using a dynamic IP I guess) is an WP:SPA going about pushing the viewpoint of the Chinese government here and there. When I originally wrote the "reactions" section I purposely left out inconsequential reactions, like token politician condolences, because many officials and governments expressed such sentiments, and I don't think it's useful to fill up the article with this sort of cruft, especially from parties who are not involved with the incident. Upon removing the section I was promptly accused of being "anti-China". It is apparent from IP's editing behavior and attitude that the purpose of adding this section is simply to assert Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong. Secondly, by "propagandistic" I refer to the melodramatic tone of the original content. It wasn't a quotation either. The version I revised (before deleting it entirely) is better but still odd and still ultimately kind of pointless to include.

I am pretty sure the above two IPs are related to 171.10.177.144?? I suspect sock puppetry, or collusion among Chinese political agenda editors, through some outside means of communications, who are edit warring on the same few articles.

I also want to add that we already got a third opinion at the talk page. And lastly, it makes no sense to call me "anti-China" for this considering I was the one who originally added the responses from Carrie Lam (the most prominent pro-China figure in Hong Kong) as well as the pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Unions. The difference is that Lam and the FTU's comments had actual implications, whereas the comments from the mainland government were just inconsequential token formalities. Citobun (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one thing I would like to point out, the original content of this section was not added by me, but by NYKTNE (talk · contribs) through this edit.--223.89.144.195 (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - The filing editor is advised that if they want to engage in dispute resolution, they will be better off to register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If the only issue is whether to keep or remove a section, a Request for Comments may be appropriate. The purpose of discussion here would be to decide whether to compromise, such as by abridging the section. Do the editors want assistance in compromise, or do they want a yes/no answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To me, any assistance in compromise is better. --223.89.144.195 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - If the editors want a yes/no answer, they may ask for a Third Opinion. This noticeboard doesn't decide who is right. If the editors want to engage in moderated discussion here, I would suggest that the unregistered editor register an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2018 (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.

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

• User talk:TheDragonFire300#Don Baldwin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheDragonFire300 (talk · contribs)
• 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This IP editor thinks that their memory of a television program (which may be false, but I don't know) is better than a referenced fact. Their edits concern Don Baldwin.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Informing them what citation policies Knowledge has

How do you think we can help?

Review the TV program the IP editor mentioned. Educate them on why citations are important, or why they are bad.

---

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.

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

• User talk:ScrapIronIV#WP:LYRICS discussion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Surjection (talk · contribs)
• ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:ScrapIronIV claims that national anthems should not be part of Knowledge articles: I eventually counter with the idea of adding the lyrics with a template to transwiki the content over to Wikisource (which seems to agree with the eventual goal declared by the user: to remove it to an external source). However, the user in question has negated WP:NPOV and is now accusing me of edit warring (on my user talk page) after what I assume is consensus was reached on this talk page.

(The dispute in question concerns some articles of national anthems: Meniń Qazaqstanym ‎and National anthem of Mongolia). (This is why the discussion has not taken place on an article talk page)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted the user on the talk page, who has either avoided discussion altogether or provided points I have refuted.

How do you think we can help?

We should decide on whether the anthems should stay on Knowledge as-is, be moved over to Wikisource, or be removed entirely.

---

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.

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:Falcon Heavy#Super-Heavy lift or not? (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JFG (talk · contribs)
• Winged Brick (talk · contribs)
• Sarilho1 (talk · contribs)
• BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs)
• Appable (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Orbital rockets are classified by NASA in several rough categories of payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO): Medium-lift launch vehicles between 2,000 and 20,000 kg, Heavy-lift launch vehicles from 20 to 50 tonnes, and Super heavy-lift launch vehicles above 50 tonnes. The dispute concerns whether the recently-developed Falcon Heavy rocket should be called "heavy" or "super heavy" with regard to the NASA classification. This rocket has recently conducted its first flight, carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster as a dummy payload which weighs about 1300 kg, so its maximum lift capacity has not been demonstrated yet. Marketing literature by SpaceX, the rocket manufacturer, lists a LEO capacity of 63,400 kg. Editor Winged Brick uses this theoretical capacity to assert in wikivoice that Falcon Heavy is a super heavy-lift launch vehicle, citing a source (Forbes) that merely lists the announced capacity, makes no reference to the NASA classification, and does not even use the words "super heavy". I have advised this editor repeatedly that they are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. When asked for sources that would explicitly make the "super heavy" claim, they evade the question and ask me to provide sources to the contrary, i.e. asserting that Falcon Heavy is not a super-heavy-class rocket. I cannot prove a negative, but I did provide statements by SpaceX themselves calling their rocket a "heavy-lift launch vehicle" and company founder Elon Musk alluding to the potential development of a derivative rocket which would be called "Falcon Super Heavy", and would roughly match the performance of the retired Saturn V Moon rocket. In other announcements, Musk has stated that Falcon Heavy would never fly in its expendable mode, the only configuration that may enable it to lift more than 50 tonnes.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Enjoined the opposing editor several times to provide a source that would avoid WP:SYNTHESIS.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify whether the disputed statement constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. Suggest other ways to explain the "heaviness" of this rocket, so that all parties would be satisfied, and our readers would be fully and correctly informed.

NASA has a category for Super-Heavy Lift Launch vehicles delineated by their lift capability to low-earth orbit. Greater than 50 Metric tons places a vehicle in the super-heavy lift category. SpaceX advertises over 60 mT to LEO on their web site advertising launch services. They have published a price of $150M USD for a fully expendable, 60 mT launch. The rocket has flown once and more launches have been sold. It is a proven rocket with demonstrable lift capability. I can provide references for all of this, but this has already been done to the point of nausea in the respective discussion and edits. There are no references that put the LEO expendable payload ability of the FH below 60 MT. Good luck fining one. These are facts. --Winged Brick (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I've only get into the discussion because I've notice an edit summary by Winged Brick (talk · contribs) which I find childish for Knowledge standards: "No, the status quo WAS super-heavy before SpaceX haters jumped in. This is REFERENCED material". I find this and others comments by the user regarding the subject part of an inappropriate conduct in Knowledge, so I advised him/her to cut with that attitude. This had nothing to do with the discussion in question, being simply a call for a civilized and respectful debate, which I felt it was lacking.

Regarding the subject, from my poor understanding, the category in question is defined by NASA in a draft but it is not used much outside that framework. For such reason, it doesn't specify which categories each launch system would go. It is not meant to be a descriptor for current launch systems, so it lefts open to interpretation which is exactly the criteria for inclusion (does it need to flight with such weight to be included or not?). The articles in Knowledge about it are entirely based on that reference defining the category and in bunch of references describing how other launch systems would fit the category. I feel we might be in a situation where Knowledge sets or popularizes a certain language for a certain field, which I don't find recommendable, since we might get into a Knowledge's bootstrap paradox. I personally favour an introductory description of Falcon Heavy that doesn't make use of such classification. Given the specifically of the field, if such solution is not possible, I would prefer to have Falcon Heavy described as a Heavy-lift launch vehicle with an appropriate note describing how it theoretically can be flown in a super-heavy configuration until a) it indeed flies in a super-heavy configuration or b) a source is provided, preferably from NASA since it was NASA who created the category, that describes the launcher as a super-heavy launch system.

You acknowledge that a Super Heavy lift launch vehicles is designed for >50 tons payload, yet refuse to do so in the article. It is designed to do so, and it will in due time. It is like saying a car with 4 seats is certified for maximum one person until it gets 3 passengers. Nobody at Super heavy-lift launch vehicle article has contested listing Falcon Heavy as a super heavy; have you asked over there for consensus at deleting Falcon Heavy from that article as well?

On the same premise, the SLS rocket, the Long March 9 rocket and the BFR rocket are also designed to be super-heavy lift, and it says so in their own articles, yet those rockets have not flown once and I don't see you deleting "super-heavy" from those articles. Why?

Some sources correctly describing it as a super heavy rocket

BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: I'm leaning towards closing this as I don't really see a dispute, but more of one editor unwilling to accept consensus. @JFG: Can you comment on the sources provided by BatteryIncluded in your comment? Thanks. Nihlus 03:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nihlus (talk · contribs) Not the person you asked, but since I was notified, I left a comment in this page. The sources BatteryIncluded (talk · contribs) provided share very similar remarks, so it is very possible some where inspired by others. I raised the question, in my comment, of having Knowledge setting the wording on the subject, so could those sources have got their information from Knowledge to do their reporting (the timeline would be consistent? If so, are they still valid references? It would be near-impossible to prove, but I still feel it undermines the content in Knowledge if we get into a case of Knowledge referencing itself. Can we get some sources by NASA indicating the launcher in such category? If so, I hope it would kill the discussion in favour of keeping the current description, if not, I feel the discussion is valid and very important. - Sarilho1 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. I have a question. Am I correct in my reading of this as a one-against-many debate? If the filing editor is arguing against four other editors, they would do better either to accept that consensus is against them, or to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2018 (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.

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:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)
• Dilpa kaur (talk · contribs)
• Mar4d (talk · contribs)
• NadirAli (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 9 February, I made an edit to the Kashmir conflict page with the edit summary copy edit and add sources. In the process, I have expanded a sentence based on the information from a source, which can be seen more clearly in this redo of the edit. Dilpa kaur complained on the talk page that it fails NPOV. Then Mar4d and NadirAli reverted it, also claiming that it fails NPOV. However, nobody has explained how it fails NPOV. The additional source provided by Dilpa kaur says pretty much the same thing.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion at Talk:Kashmir conflict#Nimitz replacement.

How do you think we can help?

Interrogate and resolve the claim of NPOV failure.

Kautilya3's claim that there is no contradiction between the sources is WP:MISREPRESENTATION.

Here's the Ganguly source

They also reached an informal agreement that the initial UN appointed plebiscite administrator, Adm. Chester W. Nimitz of the United States, would have to be replaced. India had taken the lead in pushing for Nimitz's removal because it had perceived a pro-Pakistani bias on the part of the United States in the Security Council debates. However, when word of this informal agreement became public, an outcry ensued against the Indian position throughout influential sections of the Pakistani press. Nehru and Bogra, to their mutual credit, nonetheless managed to limit the damage and placed the negotiations back on track.

A few things to note here. Nimitz was a UN appointee and it was India which took the lead in demanding the removal of a UN appointed plebiscite administrator. So clearly the whole problem here is India's fault as it bad to pick issues with the U.N. Yet Kautilya3's edits seek to place the blame solely on Pakistan as the reason for the stall in negotiations for a plebiscite. This is why his edit fails WP:NPOV as it misses India's role in stirring up the matter.

Now here is the contradiction. Rizvi is saying that after agreeing to India's demand Mr Bogra (Pakistani PM) backtracked from the agreement to remove Nimitz. This contradicts Ganguly who says that after the agreement to remove Nimitz was done there was an outcry in the Pakistani press but still Bogra ("to his credit") resisted it and managed to keep the negotiations with India on track. Ganguly then says the real problem started with the US announcement to send military aid to Pakistan.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -Evaluating the discussion-scape.~ Winged Blades 17:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • In view of my involvements with some of editors on the broader locus of the dispute, I'm recusing myself.But, I may choose to chime in, shall any relevant need arise:) Robert, best of luck!~ Winged Blades 17:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will try to act as the moderator. I don't claim to have any particular knowledge about the Kashmir conflict. I expect the editors to explain any details that are important. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. I will remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply to India and Pakistan. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the issue with regard to article content? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two issues here causing the dispute.

1. The removal of content about India's fault in creating trouble. Ganguly tells us India took the lead in getting rid of a UN appointed plebiscite administrator. So that clearly shows India started the problem. But this edit removes the fact that India did not approve of Nimitz, thus laying the onus on Pakistan for stalling proceedings. This half-picture misrepresents actual facts.

2. Bogra agreed to India's demand that Nimitz be removed. Both the sources which are cited - Rizvi and Ganguly - agree on this point. But there is a contradiction on the second part, but Kautilya3 sees no contradiction and claims both sources say the same thing when actually they do not. The contradiction between the sources is that Rizvi says that Bogra backtracked on the agreement to remove Nimitz. But Ganguly says that Bogra did not backtrach, he in fact resisted media pressure from his country to backtrack and actually kept the negotiations with India on track. The real problem started later when the US announced its intent to give Pakistan military aid.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It has not yet been explained what was the NPOV violation in the content that I had added. Secondly, I am not confident that "India's fault" is acceptable terminology for a Wikipedian to use. We are not here to find "faults" with countries.

In any case, moving on in the interest of finding a resolution, here are short answers to NadirAli's points:

1. Nehru was proposing a new bilateral process, which was quite different from the UN process. There was no role for the UN in Nehru's process, and certainly not for the UN-appointed plebiscite administrator. Language like "India's fault" and "creating trouble" is quite out of line.

2. The paragraph under discussion, both before and after the edit ends with the "stall in the proceedings". Did Bogra accept the Nimitz replacement before this or after? After the "stall", other things happened that soured the deal very quickly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In more detail:

The WP:NPOV issue is the lack of WP:BALANCE complained about in my previous reply's point no.2. The first WP:NPOV problem is the WP:CHERRYPICKING of facts which ignore India's role in stalling the proceedings.

1. We are not interested in blantant WP:OR about why Nehru wanted to throw a neutral body such as the United Nations out of negotiations to achieve his ends (whatever they were). We are interested in what the sources say. I am not proposing that language such as 'India's fault' be in the content. That is a talkpost explanation of source content. What I want mentioned is that India took the lead in kicking out a UN appointed plebiscite administrator (Nimitz). If this important point is not mentioned and only Bogra's part is mentioned it amounts to WP:CHERRYPICKING which creates a false impression to the reader of Pakistani guilt and Indian innocence.

2. Your sentence sourced to Rizvi ″Having agreed to Nehru's proposal in Delhi without any qualifications, Bogra later objected to the replacement of Admiral Nimitz as the plebiscite administrator″ contradicts Ganguly who says ″They also reached an informal agreement that the initial UN appointed plebiscite administrator, Adm. Chester W. Nimitz of the United States, would have to be replaced. India had taken the lead in pushing for Nimitz's removal because it had perceived a pro-Pakistani bias on the part of the United States in the Security Council debates. However, when word of this informal agreement became public, an outcry ensued against the Indian position throughout influential sections of the Pakistani press. Nehru and Bogra, to their mutual credit, nonetheless managed to limit the damage and placed the negotiations back on track. Their success, however, was short lived. In late February 1954, the Eisenhower administration announced its intention to provide military assistance to Pakistan.″

Now in the interests of moving ahead to find a mutually acceptable resolution you will need to WP:BALANCE the sources and show us your draft for checking.

Correct information about the true history behind the whole state of affairs.

It appears that the issue has to do with the wording of the statement about the issue about the plebiscite administrator. Will each editor please propose their one-paragraph text of how they think the article should read about that, and tell where in the article it should go?

If there are any issues other than this wording, please tell what they are, and we may have to discuss them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The old content already has these two sentences:

Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions... ... According to Schofield, Pakistan's reluctance to consider an arbitrator other than Admiral Nimitz, and India's lack of approval of Nimitz, led to a stall in proceedings.

I am opposed to the phrase "India's lack of approval of Nimitz", because it suggests that India had something against Nimitz. Rather, this "lack of approval" followed from the principle that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers. As far as we know, Bogra agreed with the principle.

So, I would suggest something like:

Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions.... ... Nehru's demand that the plebiscite administrator should not be from one of the major powers meant that the previously appointed UN administrator, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, needed to be replaced. Pakistan was reluctat to consider an administrator other than Nimitz. This led to a stall in proceedings.

It seems best not drag in Bogra here, because his own predilections seem to have been quite favourable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

.

My proposed content is this:

India took the lead in demanding that the UN appointed plebiscite administrator, American Admiral Nimitz, be removed because it felt a pro-Pakistani bias from the United States. Pakistan was reluctant to consider an administrator other than Nimitz, this disagreement apparently stalled proceedings. But both sides did manage to come to an informal agreement to remove Nimitz from his role. Despite the backlash in the Pakistani press against agreeing to this Indian demand the prime ministers of both countries managed to keep the negotiations on track.

The sources cited document the Indian lead in removing Nimitz and Bogra keeping the negotiations on track despite public disapproval, these things can't be overlooked.

• To editor Robert McClenon: could you kindly inform Kautilya3 to focus on sourcing and content instead of WP:POV and WP:OR about India's foreign relations and politics with the USA and major powers. It gets rather difficult to move forward when these WP:FORUM discussions come in. Knowledge arguments on content inclusion should only focus on sourcing and their weighting.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• I do not write any WP:OR. Happy to provide sources for any statement I make if it is challenged. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There have been two proposed wordings for the text of the issue about the plebiscite administrator. Will each editor please indicate whether they are willing to accept the other wording? Will each editor also please propose a compromise wording? Do not argue against the other editor, or about the thinking of dead politicians. If there are any more off-topic remarks, I will have to fail the moderation. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors or irrelevant material. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

My objections to NadirAli's proposed wording: It is entirely dependent on one book: Sumit Ganguly's Conflict Unending. It is not corroborated by other sources, especially historians like Gowher Rizvi and Sarvepalli Gopal, which are in turn valided by American diplomat Howard B. Schaffer. Ganguly cites precisely on one source for his entire discusion, an American diplomatic dispatch from Pakistan. We cannot possibly take his views on Nehru to be authentic. Secondly, both Gowher Rizvi and Ayesha Jalal, well-versed in Pakistani history, point out that Bogra was a powerless prime minster and that the entire Pakistani establishment was arrayed against the agreement reached by him with Nehru. In the light of this, I think there is no need to overplay the Pakistani efforts. More details below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my peviously proposed text which is already a compromise version. I reproduce it here for the record:

Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions. ... Nehru's demand that the plebiscite administrator should not be from one of the major powers meant that the previously appointed UN administrator, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, needed to be replaced. Pakistan was reluctat to consider an administrator other than Nimitz. This led to a stall in proceedings.

When I said to be concise, I meant to be concise. When I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, I meant not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Too long, didn't read. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My objections to the first two sentences by Kautilya3 The text proposed by Kautilya3 speaks from an Indian standpoint and reflects Indian concerns and is primarily based on the Raghavan citation whose background is in the Indian army and has worked as an official historian for the Indian givernment on the Kargil war, rendering him a non WP:INDEPENDENT source. It is based on the premise among Indians that the Western world treated India unfairly, hence Nehru was justified in demanding that a plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers such as the USA. Scholarship does not agree. WP:NPOV is failed here. This part of his text Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions... is WP:UNDUE. For two reasons. The first is as I said there is a presumption underlying this sentence of an anti-India bias in the West, which scholars do not agree with. The second reason is that the WP:RS and even Nehru himself the Nehru-Bogra agreement was a drama to avert UN attention and quell Kashmiri unrest, so it is meaningless whether Nehru placed no other conditions. Here are supporting passages from the historians, Bruce Riedel: Like his successors, Truman wanted to build good relations with both India and Pakistan...The Texas-born Nimitz moved to New York in March 1949 to work with the UN and to set up a staff to arrange the voting procedures. He enthusiastically wrote that India and Pakistan both had an ″ardent desire to secure a peaceful solution″....Nimitz agreed and again waited for India and Pakistan to set dates for him to visit. Truman and the British prime minister both wrote to the leaders of both countries urging support for the Nimitz mission. It was India's prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who turned Truman down. Nehru, who felt an emotional and family bond to the province, had made the decision to send troops to Kashmir in 1947, and he was determined not to give it up. After meeting with Nehru when he came to Washington in October 1949, Truman left it to others to push the Kashmir issue with him, and Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Nimitz met with Nehru to try to change his mind. Nehru insisted that all Pakistani troops had to leave Kashmir first while Indian troops stayed to maintain law and order, implicitly indicating that his troops would ensure the right outcome of the plebiscite. Acheson wrote later that Nehru was ″one of the most difficult men with whom I had ever had to deal.″ Nimitz tried to budge him in two more meetings but got nowhere. In February 1950 the UN Security Council voted to send a representative to South Asia to try to break the deadlock. Pakistan insisted on Nimitz; India rejected him. The admiral never made it to South Asia, and he went home to California for good. He officially resigned his position only in 1953, but the effort was over long before then. Nehru told the American ambassador that ″he was tired of receiving moralistic advice from the United States. So far as Kashmir was concerned, he would not give an inch.″ Howard Schaffer: Frustrated by his inability to take up his responsibilities in Kashmir, Nimitz had wanted to quit for more than a year. He was convinced that no mediation effort in Kashmir was going to succeed as long as Nehru maintained his present ″unstatesman-like attitude.″ So according to the scholars the demand for Nimitz removal stemmed from Nehru's unstatesmanship and insincerity in solving the dispute. In light of all these scholarly assessments I see this text 'Nehru's demand...needed to be replaced as meaningless and WP:UNDUE WP:POV which implies that there was some obligation on Pakistan to follow India's demand. Its too much when we know from scholars that the agreement was a show and Nehru was never sincere during the negotiations in the first place and that this all followed from India's self-perception of itself as the victim of American policy. Response to the objections to my first sentence Kautilya3 would do well to remember that nationalities of scholars do not matter. And Sumit Ganguly is an Indo-American scholar with impeccable credentials from both India and America. I find that the passages Kautilya3 has quoted from Schaffer and Rizvi sources are actually supporting this line India took the lead in demanding that the UN appointed plebiscite administrator, American Admiral Nimitz. Both say that Nehru did not want an American as a plebiscite administrator and took the lead in removing Nimitz. Rizvi: Nehru's suggestion for the appointment of a new plebiscite administrator did not emanate from any sinister motive but merely from his suspicion of the Americans. Schaffer: By the time he and Bogra conferred, Nehru had become outspoken in his determination that the admiral step down. Gopal attributed this to Nehru’s desire to insulate Kashmir from cold war rivalries and his dismay with Washington’s efforts to bar New Delhi from participating in a major international conference on Korea (My note: This is Gopal's opinion, not Schaffer's words)... The prime minister wanted a representative of a small, neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden to succeed Nimitz. He categorically ruled out appointing another American. Yes Rizvi does say there was no sinister motive and Gopal says that Nehru was dismayed with the Americans but it does not represent scholarly consensus. I have pointed out earlier that other scholars do not agree with the claim of anti-Indian bias in the US. Other scholars have also maintained that America did its best to solve the conflict but Nehru was just not sincere and interested in a solution to the Kashmir dispute. What's more the historians believe Nehru was filibustering for time and getting rid of Nimitz was part of that. My compromise explained in light of because it felt a pro-Pakistani bias from the United States Yet as a compromise I am willing to avoid mention of this WP:DUE scholarly assessment that Nehru was insincere during the entire course of the negotiations, rendering his entire offer and demands meaningless, and I am also willing to drop mention of the scholars who discount the idea that the West/America had a bias against India. I will suffice with the Indian-American scholar Ganguly's explanation that India ″perceived″ a pro-Pakistan bias on America's part. ″Perceived″ is the proper WP:NPOV term since it balances both the Indian and American positions without giving explicit recognition to either. As part of WP:AGF I have already come half-way here now. I do not wish to be forced back to my original position. Response to the objections to my third sentence Kautilya3's rejection of this sentence is based on his opposition to the Indian-American scholar Ganguly based on nationality. But nationalities are irrelevant on Knowledge, as long as they are WP:INDEPENDENT. The rest of my response is explained under my compromise. The comment that ″Pakistan itself″ was uninterested, using Jalal's work, is incorrect WP:OR because so far as the talks were concerned Pakistan was represented by its PM Bogra. What the Cabinet thought had no bearing on the talks. The success of the Nehru-Bogra talks ended when India turned it down, using the US-Pakistan defence pact in what is described as a ″splendid excuse″ for India to go back on its word. The Pakistani cabinet had nothing to do with it. The passage from Jalal does not support Kautilya3's comments. The only source so far quoted which explicitly provides a picture of the Pakistani reaction is Ganguly, who is sufficient support for my proposed text.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC) References Vernon Hewitt (15 September 1997). The New International Politics of South Asia: Second Edition. Manchester University Press. pp. 110–. ISBN 978-0-7190-5122-7. Teresita C. Schaffer; Howard B. Schaffer (5 April 2016). India at the Global High Table: The Quest for Regional Primacy and Strategic Autonomy. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-8157-2823-8. Howard B. Schaffer (1 September 2009). The Limits of Influence: America's Role in Kashmir. Brookings Institution Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8157-0370-9. Jawaharlal Nehru. Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru: 1 November-31 December 1957. 23. p. 347. Recent events in Kashmir have had a very powerful reaction in other countries. This is against us completely. I am not referring to Pakistan which has grown madly hysterical. If this hysteria continued, it would inevitably produce reactions in Kashmir among the pro-Pakistani elements and their sympathisers. The result would be no period of quiet at all and constant trouble. But for some kind of an agreement between us and Pakistan, the matter would inevitably have been raised in the U.N. immediately and they might well have sent down their representative to Kashmir. All this again would have kept the agitation alive and made it grow. In the circumstances, this is a good statement and helps us in trying to get a quieter atmosphere Altaf Gauhar (24 October 1996). Ayub Khan: Pakistan's first military ruler. Oxford University Press. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-19-577647-8. The State was then in the grip of a popular agitation and a little pressure from Pakistan would have helped the resistance movement, but Pakistani Prime Minister, Bogra, decided to fly to New Delhi and embrace Nehru as his `Big Brother', little realising that the Indians were in a particularly vulnerable position at that time and needed to come to a show of understanding with Pakistan to demoralise the Kashmiris. Pakistan fell into that trap. ^ Bruce Riedel (29 January 2013). Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 48–50. ISBN 978-0-8157-2409-4. Howard B. Schaffer (1 September 2009). The Limits of Influence: America's Role in Kashmir. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-0-8157-0370-9. "Sumit Ganguly | Department of Political Science | Indiana University Bloomington". polisci.indiana.edu. Retrieved 2018-02-26. Francis Pike (28 February 2011). Empires at War: A Short History of Modern Asia Since World War II. I.B.Tauris. pp. 349–. ISBN 978-0-85773-029-9. This position was reinforced by Nehru's refusal to sanction a United Nations Commission, under Amiral Nimitz, to arbitrate a staged withdrawal of the armed forces of both sides...By now it was clear to most observers that Nehru was filibustering for time. Vernon Hewitt (15 September 1997). The New International Politics of South Asia: Second Edition. Manchester University Press. pp. 110–. ISBN 978-0-7190-5122-7. Teresita C. Schaffer; Howard B. Schaffer (5 April 2016). India at the Global High Table: The Quest for Regional Primacy and Strategic Autonomy. Brookings Institution Press. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-8157-2823-8. Howard B. Schaffer (1 September 2009). The Limits of Influence: America's Role in Kashmir. Brookings Institution Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8157-0370-9. Golam Wahed Choudhury (1971). Pakistan's relations with India. Meenakshi Prakashan. In May 1954, the news of American military aid to Pakistan was published, which gave Pandit Nehru a splendid excuse to go back on his commitments to hold a free vote in Kashmir. So far, India's inability to hold the plebiscite had been a disagreement over demililtarisation now began the second excuse : Pakistan's new military strength. It was in vain that Mohammed Ali (Bogra) pointed out that India was spending three times as much as Pakistan on its armed forces. Knowing that powerful sections of the Indian public made no secret of their resolve to annul the partition of the subcontinent by force, Pakistan had cause for uneasiness at the rapidity with which India was arming herself. If either country staged a military comeback in in Kashmir after demilitarisation, Mohammad Ali wrote, war might engulf the entore subcontinent, and therefore it did not really matter where troops were deployed. The danger to peace in Asia arose not so much out of military aid but from disputes relating to Kashmir and other matters which affected the well being of millions. But Nehru's objections to military aid to Pakistan dominated the correspondence and ultimately wrecked the direct talks which Muhammad Ali began with great hopes. Pakistan's Prime Minister tried again and again to impress on Nehru that the over-all military strengths of the two countries outside Kashmir could have no bearing on the issue if demilitarisation were accepted. But, thanks to Nehru's intransigence, no progress towards this goal could be made.

My version is corroborated by the historians Bruce Riedel, Howard Schaffer and many others (see the extended discussion). Kautilya3's version is WP:UNDUE because it is based on minority views (see extended discussion ) in WP:RS (and its primary basis is the Raghavan citation who is not a WP:INDEPENDENT source because of his Indian military background) and is based on the two presumptions of (1) Indian sincerity during the talks and (2) anti-India bias in the US/West; both presumptions are rejected by scholarship (see extended discussion ). The rejection of these two presumptions by scholarship render Nehru's entire offer and demands (as represented in Kautilya3's text) meaningless and WP:UNDUE.

My version is already a compromise version (as I have explained in the extended discussion ). It is unreasonable to ask me to go beyond that. I stand by my version for it is NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE. For various WP:RS take many sides and Ganguly balances all those descriptions with a perfect impartiality:

India took the lead in demanding that the UN appointed plebiscite administrator, American Admiral Nimitz, be removed because it felt a pro-Pakistani bias from the United States. Pakistan was reluctant to consider an administrator other than Nimitz, this disagreement apparently stalled proceedings. But both sides did manage to come to an informal agreement to remove Nimitz from his role. Despite the backlash in the Pakistani press against agreeing to this Indian demand the prime ministers of both countries managed to keep the negotiations on track.

Kautilya3's quotation of Jalal does not support his point because the Nehru-Bogra talks were between two prime ministers. The Pakistani establishment may have criticized it but did nothing to stop the talks or its progress. Ultimately it was India which ended the outcome of the Nehru-Bogra talks.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Will each editor please again state only the text that they propose for the wording about the plebiscite administrator? The matter will be resolved by an RFC (unless I have to fail the discussion). Robert McClenon (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Seeing there was no compromise in response to my good faith compromise, I will revert to supporting my original text.

India took the lead in demanding that the UN appointed plebiscite administrator, the American Admiral Nimitz, be removed because it felt a pro-Pakistani bias from the United States, although scholars have found that the USA and Nimitz wanted to solve the dispute in good faith but Nehru did not. But both Nehru and Bogra did manage to come to an informal agreement to remove Nimitz from his role. Despite the backlash in the Pakistani press against agreeing to this Indian demand the prime ministers of both countries managed to keep the negotiations on track.

--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

My proposed wording (representing a compromise):

Other than demanding that the plebiscite administrator not be from one of the major powers, he placed no other conditions. ... Nehru's demand that the plebiscite administrator should not be from one of the major powers meant that the previously appointed UN administrator, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, needed to be replaced. Pakistan was reluctat to consider an administrator other than Nimitz. This led to a stall in proceedings.

The green bit represents the existing content in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - NadirAli calls it his version the "original text". But the clause " although scholars have found that the USA and Nimitz wanted to solve the dispute in good faith but Nehru did not" is newly added. It has not been either proposed or discussed before. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Robert, whilst I seldom interfere in cases handled by other volunteers, I think you do have to indulge in some heavy-reading of boring texts etc., to resolve the dispute.Much of the now-collapsed texts is significant to the content-dispute.~ Winged Blades 06:07, 28 February 2018 (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.

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:David Hogg (activist)#Business Insider (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ScratchMarshall (talk · contribs)
• MrX (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

2 March 2018 in special:diff/828496734 MrX removed my talk page contribution. In it I had added the following source related to the article.

• Block, Eliana (21 February 2018). "VERIFY: Here's why David Hogg and other Florida students aren't 'crisis actors'". WUSA (TV). All over social media people are sharing a screenshot of a yearbook. A tweet from Laguna Beach Antifa with a yearbook photo claiming Hogg actually went to school in California and "always wanted to work for CNN and be an actor." There's also an interview of Hogg on a Los Angeles CBS Station back in August. Conspiracy Theorists say it's proof he's not from Florida. To Verify our researchers tracked down the source of that yearbook photo and found this video posted by a Douglas student. That video shows the book's cover, and you'll see it's actually be from Marjory Douglas High School in Florida. As for that video from California? Our team found Hogg's YouTube "vlog" which shows he was on vacation in Cali at the time.

In the edit summary MrX called it a "WP:BLP violation". I would like input regarding whether or not this appears to violate BLP, and if so, in what way. I would also like to know if I should be directed to a more advanced kind of dispute resolution.

In special:diff/828508698 when I asked for more information about why I was reverted, and what part of BLP did the content that I added violate, I was told things like:

• stop using shitty sources
• stop posting links to conspiracy theorists websites
• stop trying to find sources to support far-right propaganda

I don't understand how my above-cited reference meets any of these criteria. I am looking for a mediator who may have some incite as to what MrX means about me violating BLP with this source. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After he reverted my contribution to the article talk page, I contacted MrX on his User talk in response to a warning he left on my talk.

Although he replied twice, he erased my last reply in special:diff/828524383 saying "leave me alone". So pursuing 1 on 1 resolution no longer seems possible.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping others will actually address my questions instead of ignoring them, will explain if/how my posting this WUSA article violates BLP, and explain to MrX the importance of communicating objections clearly to editors he disapproves of.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editor. If the filing party wants a mediator who will simply answer a question, a Third Opinion would be sufficient. This noticeboard is for requests for moderated discussion to result in compromise on article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2018 (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.

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

• Ashkenazi Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Nishidani (talk · contribs)
• Sro23 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've tried to make the section on the Khazar hypothesis read like this: 

In the late 19th century, it was proposed that the core of today's Ashkenazi Jewry are genetically descended from a hypothetical Khazarian Jewish diaspora who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany (as opposed to the currently held theory that Jews migrated from France and Germany into Eastern Europe). The results of genetic studies conflict on the theory. A 2013 trans-genome study carried out by 30 geneticists, from 13 universities and academies, from 9 countries, assembling the largest data set available to date, for assessment of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic origins found no evidence of Khazar origin among Ashkenazi Jews. "Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region", the authors concluded. The results of other studies support the theory, for example, "A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE" by Ellen Levy-Coffman and "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" by Eran Elhaik.

There are people who want to keep evidence supporting the Khazar hypothesis out of the article in furtherance of a political agenda. This is completely inappropriate. Politics and science don't mix. But, the moderators have sided with these people and labeled my edits vandalism. They've blocked me from posting and all discussion of the Khazar hypothesis has been deleted from the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've requested formal mediation. The request was rejected.

How do you think we can help?

I don't know.

---

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.

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:Matthew Island and Hunter Island (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Escargoten (talk · contribs)
• Meters (talk · contribs)
• Ckatz (talk · contribs)
• BarnabyJoe (talk · contribs)
• Cipika (talk · contribs)
• AuburnAttack21 (talk · contribs)
• CaseyOHamlin (talk · contribs)
• Leodescal (talk · contribs)
• Jeff in CA (talk · contribs)
• Johnuniq (talk · contribs)
• DenysTezdzhanenko (talk · contribs)
• Will Sn0w (talk · contribs)
• Joél be back (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For nearly 6 years already there's an ongoing dispute on "Matthew Island and Hunter Island" Talkpage about whether a section about the Federal Republic of Lostisland - a micronation with claims over the island, something that has been highlighted in a number of independent sources - merits an inclusion.

I'd be willing to accept when the micronation's claim was first added in 2012 it was, perhaps, indeed of questionable notability, since that however it's been mentioned in Vanuatu Daily Post, on Hawaii Public Radio, in a French book, in a Lonely Planet guide and in a number of other sources. Unfortunately however User:Meters keeps on insisting the content is "non-notable" and "undue" regardless of how many sources report on it, and it very much looks like he would keep on insisting on that regardless of how many new sources emerge in the future. User:Meters claims a consensus has been reached to not include the section, this however is not the case as one can well see from the discussions on the talkpage. Under the existing circumstances I have no choice but to bring the issue to dispute resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

An extensive discussion took place on the Talkpage but to no avail, I'm not sure what else can be done.

How do you think we can help?

I'd appreciate if someone more experienced helped to reach a consensus about the issue, something that so far hasn't been reached.

---

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.

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:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#Proposal 4 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jzsj (talk · contribs)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• 32.218.43.17 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Is the background information about why the school was founded relevant to the article. Note the long discussion that took place here before editors were convinced that this school was responding to a poverty situation. Articles should show what is distinctive about a particular school, and notable statistics in the references give a good indication why this school fits into the Cristo Rey Network.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None.

How do you think we can help?

By suggesting that they unblock the article and allow the change. All improvements that I have attempted to the article have been reverted.

You can best see the nature of the problem here when participant The Banner kicks off with the bad faith comment "Just another attempt to get his spamming into the article."The article as it stands now merely mentions that "The school follows the Cristo Rey Network work-study model", but provides no details beyond those 10 anodyne words. There is more wording devoted to listing the six sports offered (31 words) or about the school's accreditation (15). I attempted to add a brief synopsis of how the work-study program operates, with reliable and verifiable sourcing included, at this edit, which was promptly reverted. I can assure all involved that I was not adding "his spamming"; what I was adding was what I understood about how the program works so that I could share it for the benefit of other readers encountering the article for the first time so that they could understand the approach for themselves.I am not connected to the school, nor have I attended the high school. I have never step foot in Lawrence, Massachusetts. I am not a Roman Catholic. I am familiar with public schools (free), private schools (often expensive to insanely expensive) and Catholic schools (often a bit less expensive). The model used at this high school, with students working a day per week in a job coordinated by the school and thereby defraying nearly two-thirds of the cost of tuition, is directly related to having any meaningful understanding of the school. The absence of these details makes the article nearly meaningless to any reader unaware of the information that is being excluded. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just another attempt to get his spamming into the article. There is consensus not to add his spam, and mr. jzsj plain ignores that. There is no dispute here, but just a plain refusel by mr. jzsj to face the music. If there comes an outcome he does not like, I am sure he will ignore it as he did quite a number of times by now. The Banner talk 22:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Even the selection of participants is biased, with a lot of people disagreeing with jzsj left out. The Banner talk 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

As Banner has stated, this is another attempt by Jzsj to ignore the fact that consensus on the article talk page was opposed to his proposal. Is it also an attempt to deflect from the recent topic ban proposal regarding his editing? 32.218.152.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposer is at ANI for WP:TE on this very article. This should be procedurally closed. John from Idegon (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban . Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2018 (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.

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:Alpha Centauri (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Eric Kvaalen (talk · contribs)
• Arianewiki1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited a paragraph which was badly written (even though I think it should simply be removed). The person who had written it immediately reverted my edit. She They said in hertheir comment "We do not have consensus to do this. Thanks". We have been discussing it on the talk page but I don't know what to do next because she hasn't answered my latest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explained my edit on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Tell us what to do.

The changes need to be by consensus, and verifiable without WP:OR - original research. No reliable source no consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For reference to dispute resolution, the discussion on Talk:Alpha Centauri/Archive 2#Motion_of_Alpha_Centauri has been interacting with a largely concurrent discussion at Talk:Proxima_Centauri#Image_of_orbit. Similar participants, similar issues. Part of the issue is WP:WALLOFTEXT, which has exhausted me. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I haven't yet read the entire discussion, which is lengthy and tedious. From its length, it is clear that calculations are being performed and argued about, but such calculations are original research. The filing party has not notified the other editor. If the editors actually want to be told what to do, stop arguing about original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep discussion to a minimum until a volunteer accepts a case for moderated discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Point of order, I observed Eric Kvaalen did notify Arianewiki1, here, which resulted in one of the above responses. The edit is no longer visible on that talk page, however. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Yes. I see that User:Arianewiki1 reads and removes notices from their talk page. Warnings are still warnings. The notice of this dispute is still the notice of this dispute. Calculations of the movements of stars are still original research unless they were published in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Saying "I see that User:Arianewiki1 reads and removes notices from their talk page. Warnings are still warnings." isn't quite true (even if I did, it is not 'on topic'.) I responded above, meaning plainly I saw it. Advisement for it is a better description than 'warning' here, which implies (innuendo?) I did something wrong. I've acted completely under policy rules. (You seem to agree. ) I also removed this because "delete vexatious attack" from VQuakr after I requested them to desist. Please retract. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC) It's true that we had a long discussion back in January because Ariane reverted an edit I did in December. But that is all water under the bridge. The question now concerns just one paragraph, which I improved a few days ago and then she reverted my edit. I didn't start a new section on the talk page because we had talked about something in that paragraph earlier in the discussion. There's no research, original or not, in the edit I did. Here is the edit under discussion. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC) You claim The question now concerns just one paragraph, which I improved a few days ago and then she reverted my edit., but that doesn't formally appear in the dispute request. Where's the link? Sorry. We can't read minds. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) In Dispute overview : I edited a paragraph which was badly written (even though I think it should simply be removed). The person who had written it immediately reverted my edit. Is false. Edit also removed the given note without explanation, not just the aledged bad writing. Hence, revert. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC) But I explained that on the talk page. I'm not trying to hide anything. I asked for an explanation of that footnote back on January 4th and you refused. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Keep discussion to a minimum until the case is accepted by a volunteer. That means keep discussion to a minimum until the case is accepted by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to try to resolve this dispute if the editors will accept my moderation. (If any editor wants a different moderator, all they have to do is ask.) Please read the rules for moderated discussion. I will repeat the rule to be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Knowledge and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but they do not communicate effectively. I will also restate that Knowledge does not permit original research. That includes arithmetic with regard to stellar motion.

Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that the issue is not the calculations that I did (on the talk page!). I did not put anything into the article based on my calculations. The issue is just the edit that I did on February 26. She reverted my edit saying that we have to have consensus. So we're stuck. See Talk:Alpha Centauri from February 26 on. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

One editor has made a statement, which is that they made an edit and it was reverted, saying that consensus is needed. The edit in fact was extensive, and it might be useful to break it into multiple edits, each of which can be discussed separately, in which case the editors would not be "stuck". Try making the edit piecemeal and discussing each part. It the other editor does not reply in 24 hours, this thread will be closed due to lack of response, and participation here is voluntary. If either editor continues not to discuss, read WP:DISCFAIL. However, breaking an edit into smaller edits often facilitates discussion. Regardless of whether there was original research, original research is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Do not try to go to Alpha Centauri to do any original research for the article, anyway. The rule that there is no deadline in Knowledge does not give us time to wait for interstellar travel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This was removed without reason nor consensus: "Changes in position angle (θ) are calculated as; θ − θ_o = μ_α × sin α × (t − t_o ), where; α = right ascension (in degrees), μ_α is the common proper motion (cpm.) expressed in degrees, and θ and θ_o are the current position angle and calculated position angle at the different epochs."

The remaining text to presumably to improve the 'English'. This statement:

"Furthermore, other small changes also occur with the binary star's orbital elements. For example, in the size of the semi-major axis of the orbital ellipse will increasing by 0.03 arcsec per century." to

"During all this the view from Earth of the binary star's mutual orbit changes. For example, the angular size of the axis of the orbital ellipse will increase by 0.03 arcsec per century."

Is simply wrong, as the reference given does not say this. The true orbit itself does not change but only the orientation elements, especially the semi-major axis, but also the inclination, nodes, etc. The linked "orbital elements" partial explains this.

Open statement by Eric Kvaalen : "Took out a footnote after asking its author on the talk page for an explanation and getting none." is false, because that what the given reference says. Changing it really needs consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, now she's discussing the edit. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to answer what she says here or whether we're supposed to continue on the talk page, but here goes.

I wrote way back on January 4 that the footnote doesn't make sense and that if she didn't give a reference I would delete it.

As for the sentences about orbital elements, it's not my version that is wrong but hers. Her version says that there are changes in the orbital elements, which she now says is false. My version corrected it to just say that our view of the orbit changes, so it looks different. Her version says the semi-major axis increases (not true), whereas my version just says that the angular size of the orbital ellipse increases (which is true). I don't know exactly what the reference says, but I'm sure it supports what I say and not her version.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Enough is enough. This is not a debate. A request was asked, in which I've objectively responded. Again. Added material needs credible citations to verify statements in articles. (I've read the reference just now on Heintz, W.D., "Double Stars" : Section "The Orbital Elements of a Visual Binary pg.33. (1978) The space motion of a binary relative to the Sun subjects all orbital elements (except eccentricity) to slow changes in time. Significant effects result only for a few stars like α Cen and 61 Cyg... and The radial velocity changes the apparent size of the semiaxis major. Proof enough, especially as the source provides formulae to calculate it.

Opinion really counts for nothing. e.g. Saying "I don't know exactly what the reference says,...": just point blank defies these editing principles.

Again. I wish to be referred with neutral gender, and this be requested several times by this individual but they persist. This is now expanded to a WP:PA. Next step will be ANI. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay. One last time. Discuss here while this discussion is still in progress. I will ask each editor to identify any edits that they want made to the article. Identify only the edits. Comment on content, not contributors. If you are satisfied with the current article content, you may say so. Just say what you want edited. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, please have the courtesy to refer to an editor as they have requested. We can't discuss content here while conduct is being discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Araine never asked me to refer to Ariane in the neuter gender, and Ariane referred to Ariane's self as "she" (talk page, Jan. 4). I will not refer to Ariane as "it" though.

I have managed to find some of the pages of the book that Ariane refers to via Google Books, here. From this I see that when Heintz speaks of orbital elements he means:

• i, the inclination of the orbital plane to the projection plane of the viewer (the orbital plane itself doesn't change -- only the projection plane changes)
• ω, the angel between the periastron and the line of nodes, that is, the intersection between the orbital plane and the projection plane (again, this is only because the projection plane changes)
• Ω, the angle between north and the line of nodes (again, this is due to a change in the projection plane)
• a, the apparent size of the semi-major axis (the semi-major axis itself does not change)

In summary, the orbit doesn't change, it's just our view of it that changes. As for the formula which Ariane put in a footnote, it's true that it's in this reference. But it seems wrong to me. It says, for example, that if one star is directly north of the other right now, and they are both moving east, then the first star will appear to move either clockwise or counterclockwise around the other depending on where in the sky it is. Doesn't make sense. It's obviously meant to be just an approximation for small values of ${\displaystyle t-t_{0},}$ but even then it seems to be wrong. He seems to derive it from Equation 3, but I am not able to see Equation 3 with Google Books. Maybe Ariane wouldl be kind enough to give us Equation 3.

In any case, Heintz says that this change in θ can be neglected in most cases. Frankly, as I've said before, I think we should drop the whole paragraph and the footnote. It's obvious information (the fact that the orbit looks different as the star system moves by), and not very interesting to those who want to know about Alpha Centauri. I say either drop the paragraph or use my compromise which I did when I edited it on February 26.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I give up. The request is: I will ask each editor to identify any edits that they want made to the article. Identify only the edits. Comment on content, not contributors. Comply or forget it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2018 (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.