This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
Closed due to inaction. It appears that the dispute does not permit compromise, but the parties do not want assistance in formulating an RFC. Discuss at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
One wolf eating 181 grasshoppers is hardly surprising. Why this user keeps on pushing this useless fact is beyond me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. WolverineXI(talk to me)19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to act as a meditator in this dispute. I have no connection to the article or any of the users involved.
DRN is a voluntary process, and further meditation is on hold pending a summary to be provided by User:Wolverine XI. Should he not respond by next Monday, the dispute will be moderated between only you two.
I will, at least temporarily, act as the moderator. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want that, at this time. I am only asking "What?", because "Why?" can come later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add an example of wolves' dietary breadth; namely a wolf consuming 181 grasshoppers. The two other editors involved here do not want this added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that one editor wants to include a mention of a wolf who was found to have eaten 181 grasshoppers, and other editors think that its inclusion is unnecessary. I am asking the editor who wants to insert the paragraph to provide the exact text that they want to insert. I am also asking each editor to make a concise statement, reflecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as to why they want to include or not include the paragraph.
As to why I wish to include it, I believe it provides an interesting example of the dietary breadth wolves exhibit, as mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded it: "When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available." It was said that this is hardly unsurprising, but this does not comport with the response in the edit summary upon reversion for the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&diff=1244332979&oldid=1244306429
Additionally, while it is true Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, this does not necessarily count as indiscriminate, as precedent for single occurrence observations of prey exists on other featured articles, such as the [bald eagle] article. Nagging Prawn (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise. Either the mention of the wolf eating the 181 grasshoppers can be included in the article (as it is included in the article about Melanoplus payettei), or it can be excluded. Since the local consensus appears to be two-to-one against inclusion, the two options are to omit the statement, or to have a Request for Comments. That is up to the filing editor. If they want an RFC, they should provide the exact text that they want to include, with source, so that it can be included in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed by agreement between filing party and moderator. This may be a question about the reliability of a source or an error in a source. Resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing party may open a new case request in the future, if there has been extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page, and if there is a specific content issue about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This is my first extensive talking through a semi-controversial dispute, so forgive me if I wasn't perfect.
So, for the past month, I've had a bit of a problem with the articles wording. I edited it, it was reverted, discussion ensued. Eventually, we settled on a consensus for about a month from Mid-September to October of 2024. It was on a dispute between findings from source C and this source J, which cites source P. This is reflected in Special:Permalink/1245461692 on September 13th.
In the meantime, I decided to post some information I'd found for readers to see. I was not warned about this behavior at the time, but I feel it necessary, because I don't censor my own thoughts and biases.
As a result I felt the need to rephrase certain parts of the article to better reflect the newly found reliability problems.
As I said, I'm inexperienced, but I feel there might be a content problem here, especially after seeing the referencing problems in Special:Permalink/1251618081, and the use of sources by the review that have been rejected.
Anyways, I hope working through DRN will help us improve dispute resolution in the future, and highlight areas where I, and we, need improvement.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(involved; apologies if I am not getting the formatting right) The fundamental problem here is that Randomstaplers is engaging in what another editor succinctly labeled perform[ing] amateur peer-review on WP:MEDRS sources - in this case, the Cochrane review article above called "Source C". [1] It is not the place of Wikpedia editors to negate the findings of such MEDRS sources based on personal analysis, only to reflect expert views as expressed in the highest quality published sources.
Yet, Randomstaplers is insisting on this edit. It contains the text A review from the Cochrane Collaboration, updated in 2023, claimed (contrary to the claims of some of its cited papers[165][166]) that masking had little effect on the spread of viral illness.[6] 6 is the Cochrane review itself; 165 and 166 are individual studies Cochrane cites, which Randomstaplers is here clearly using to argue against the review's conclusions. This is original research and completely contrary to the instructions of MEDRS.
That previous edit also has at least some other problems. It states about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Various reviews on RCTs find that masking reduces the rate of respiratory infection, but cites for this at least some sources that do not review RCTs at all, such as this and this. I can't ignore the irony that this is a clear lack of text-source integrity in their own content, the very thing they are accusing Cochrane of. Crossroads-talk-22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed edit(s) seem to be a long and elaborate way of not simply saying with the best sources say (specifically, a Cochrane Review). I think we should just summarize the best sources faithfully. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Face masks)
The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. One of the other editors has replied, and so does not need to be notified, but should be listed. Other editors who were involved in the discussion on the article talk page must be listed and notified. The filing editor and the editor who has replied should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on COVID controversies, and should acknowledge that they have read those rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. I did notify @Bon Courage with substituted {{drn-notice}}, but they appear to have deleted the template. If we come to a resolution, we might need to notify a proxy editor, because I... kinda don't want to be the one to write it.
Just to respond to you @Crossroads, the reason why I was initially compelled to edit was because RCTs on masks didn't seem to pass the sniff test, which is an engineered object... like a life jacket. I don't think it's reasonable to assign so much prominence to an life jacket RCT, which is the way I see a mask RCT: an RCT on an engineered object?
Because I had a feeling that my edits might be problematic, I created a talk page thread going through the process to explain my edits, and to verify my own edits again in the future. I called it "Removal of RCTs in progress"... well, I meant removal of some RCTs to try and reduce its prominence, but... how it sounded in my head clearly didn't translate well. I changed it only recently, after I read it to myself again.
Also, US regulation 29 CFR 1910.134(C), and especially This NIOSH publication from 1992 on Wikisource might be helpful to understand my point of view. In any case, I decided to reduce the prominence a bit more than I think is reasonable now, and might not have read the papers in their entirety. Also, I edit a lot of respirator articles. I guess... writing too much on certain topic, on Wikipedia, no less, can shift your POV.
(You know, I expected papers to cite 1910.134 more, since that would make better sense as an RCT behaviorally, but that's besides the point- I wanted to show why I was reducing the weight of RCTs in the article. I felt that the lessened burden of policy on talk pages would allow me to express myself better, but it didn't translate well this time).
I also noticed that the section in question, efficacy, was in thread mode. Tried to address that earlier, and decided to drop it pending further consensus. Only my additions got kept.
Before the compromise came, I suggested Help:How to mine a source, because the more sources we cite, the more likely we might cite a source that may be dubious. Crossroads did bring up a good point to include a variety of sources, and that's what convinced me at the time to the compromise.
Basically, my initial goal was trying to adjust the article to match what I thought was due weight, based on my previous editing history to other articles. But... that was a month ago, and we came to a consensus.
The latest change came from me noticing that source C and its references (archived) did not notify readers that certain papers had their protocols fail, particularly Alfelali 2020. This, I feel, warrants some sort of change. (In addition, the mislink on Aelami 2015 Archive today made me extra suspicious.) What I was doing was checking the reference's references. I thought I read the policy somewhere, but I forget what it's called.
In any case, journal mishaps do happen from time to time - The Lancet MMR, Cold Fusion, and the Schön scandal are what come to mind, at least for me. And the lying by omission about your references kind of reminded me of The Bell Curve.
We staged a rollout so everyone could check. To try and make the article more readable and avoid thread mode, I tried to consolidate all the RCT papers in support of masking, expanded one example and note the discrepancy in source C, linked here: Special:Diff/1251793797. That edit was reverted, and here we are.
I made several bold changes to the article to address these changes, expecting more editing than reverts, because of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, but eh, whatever. I make a lot of typos, and spend more time on articles doubting myself as a result.
Oh, and one more thing about my initial surprise at source C. It was directed at the source, not to anyone in particular. I was having my mind blown! Like, how could source C, that's been updated many times since 2007, still contain a mislink and omission of facts? Like, do I have to verify each paper's bibliography, from now on, before I can use it? Just to be sure they aren't lying by omission?
And, as for the mislinked Pubmed from Alemani 2015 showing an experiment done through a modified mas, with significantly less filter surface area, that also blew my mind. You can't call that an N95 respirator anymore according to OSHA, and it voids the NIOSH approval...!⸺(Random)staplers06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by possible moderator (Face masks)
When I said that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor, I meant that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor. I meant that they should be listed, regardless of whether they had responded without being notified, and regardless of whether they had declined to participate in moderated discussion. The filing editor should still list all of the other editors.
Since two editors have posted, we can continue, although the listing of other editors is still required, and is the responsibility of the filing editor. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a concise statement about what part of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not important to explain why you want to change the article or leave it the same. We can discuss that later. Just tell what in the article is the subject of the dispute.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the previous issues that got consensus last month. The issue right now is that this contribution, which I implemented following noticing issues with Source C. It was reverted by Crossroads, and then we agreed to implement in stages. The first paragraph got added. The second paragraph then got reverted by Bon Voyage courage. Further discussion did not go anywhere with regards to improving the paragraph. ⸺(Random)staplers04:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late addition: It just occurred to me: I'd like to also discuss the addition of {{unbalanced}} to the relevant section. I posited the analogy of life jackets earlier (with regards to regulation), since for some reason, no paper has decided to cite the relevant regulation they are following for their RCT (this drove me nuts, given how much I have written on respirators).
Although we can't conduct original research, I feel we do have an obligation to let viewers know what research needs to be conducted to improve the article, because RCTs... also show that a lot of scientists read Wikipedia first. See [2] (linked paper) and particularly this paper (which is cited by the former).
I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I had read these papers earlier with regards to my copyright work, which inevitably influenced my judgement on my talk page.⸺(Random)staplers20:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I tried to gather all I could from the talk page and it seems that you're disputing peer-reviewed articles with what content should be addressed in the article. Granted, WP:PERENNIAL allows you to view and discuss whether a website or journal is reliable. But if two peer-reviewed journals are disagreeing with each other, then that's content in of itself. I would go with whatever is more prevalent/frequent in discussed literature/news articles. Many scientific journals can exist on RTCs and offer differing opinions, but what you're trying to edit in, feels out of place. I also feel it borders some more original research. It also doesn't exactly have a WP:NPOV. The very first statement, feels false, given that Cochrane was disputed by other journals and there was only one other non-disputed journal. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even line up correctly compared to what it would have been after the constructive edits completed. I don't think what's current is perfect though, but I also don't think your edits would have made it better. Try re-writing it again? Conyo14 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14, well you see, that's the problem. I don't have any other perspectives to work with. And the initial bold edits weren't refined, (other than the first paragraph, which was accepted).
The big problem, IMO, is a logical one. From the life jacket analogy earlier: How are we supposed to explain regulatory context of each RCT? That's why I brought up 29 CFR 1910 earlier. You change the regulation, you change the results. You change the way life jackets are regulated, the police patrols, etc. You change how effective they are.
There are a couple papers that I read in the article that point out that RCTs can't be relied on alone, and trying to imply the elephant in the room, so to speak, without directly bringing up the elephant is a challenge. (I already know WP:NOR exists, but the talk page allows a bit more leeway, and it's been bothering me, as you can tell).
I tried removal way back in September, obviously that was rejected, since I missed/forgot a few guidelines.
Now, I'm trying to figure out an edit, keeping in mind all these editorial consensuses, how to explain to readers this discrepancy, with the sources we have at the moment. (And also keeping in mind there are scientists reading this, as I pointed out above).
And on top of all that: The Cochrane source has mislinks and links to a study whose protocols were failed by the authors, and the review does not disclose this! WP:Inaccuracy, and all that.⸺(Random)staplers05:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if any of you happen to have a ref, feel free to interject. Just because I'm making these claims doesn't mean it's original research, since I may have heard the statement from someone else and missed or forgot the source. See the first section in Wikipedia:These are not original research. Off topic: There were statements in the N95 article that were implied in the FR documents I read, before I was able to confirm them through publications and the Wayback machine for instance. But that took a while. ⸺(Random)staplers05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely don't be worried about scientists quoting Wikipedia. They should not be reliable if they're quoting Wikipedia.
@Conyo14 - Of course most scientists won't say they are quoting Wikipedia... But even if they aren't quoting them, it influences their judgement. It's been documented in the judicial system, see [3]. Speaking of kinda sorta... yeah. If you've been editing like I have, you can see how my POV can shift, which I emphasize my POV to try and account for this.⸺(Random)staplers06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 So I thought about this a little more, and it's occurred to me why our OR perspectives seem to differ. I wrote the part on the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, which was caused by voluntary respirator regulations. So... nobody in the disaster wore respirators.
There is also the 2001 DOL study, plus papers like this one from 2024 and this one from 2011, and this one exploring the reasons why. [4], which I mentioned on the talk page, is one of the few RCTs that actually takes usage into account, but they don't cite 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(a) when it comes to why they excluded people with facial hair.
Like, these connections seem obvious to me as someone who has written about respirators a lot. But obviously, I can't (and haven't) mention (or mentioned) all of this directly in the article, because this is an article about the pandemic, and I can't draw conclusions about the paper from 2024, because it just presents data.
Sidenote: A lot more papers have been published about this pandemic than any other, so it is possible that someone with my POV has written something. On the other hand, a lot of the AIHA's perspective is very much locked behind paywalls.⸺(Random)staplers17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair assessment, though I think quoting yourself (I know you won't be doing that) would be a WP:COI. The point I'm trying to make is that a source that quotes other sources can do so as long as it is considered reliable. If you are questioning the reliability of a source, you ought to open a discussion at WP:PERENNIAL.
That being said, I very much see the connection of dots. If there is a source that shows this connection, I think that would be something that can be added in. Provided Bon courage and Crossroads agree on the language that will be added. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources in the article, some put in place well before I got involved, that push back on the reliability of RCTs. The question is how to phrase it properly. If we were to give it too much detail, we would run the risk of making it seem like the RCT conversation is more important than it actually is, and obscure the lack of information. That's what I was trying to avoid with my last edit, by consolidating views as briefly as possible, per WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material. That last edit was also trying to remove thread mode, which... might also make it more likely that the issue will be noticed (due to the WP:REALWORLD concern of having scientists being influenced by Wikipedia) rather than glossed over as a controversy, IMO.
This still looks like a lot of WP:OR on your part, especially about N95s. It's not as simple as you seem to be saying; N95s meeting safety regulation is largely irrelevant here. There are all sorts of reasons why N95s might nevertheless be less effective than they are designed to be when worn by the general public; they may have poor fit, adjust them a lot, not follow mandates, etc. Plus, the topic of the Cochrane review, of the article, and of almost all mask mandates ever implemented, are "masks", not N95s specifically. All that matters here is what MEDRS reviews say about the topic of the article. If the Cochrane review is criticized by another review, that can be included, but not OR. Crossroads-talk-20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads As I have said before, there are citations already included in the article, even before I got involved, criticizing the Cochrane study. And there's still the issue of the mis-linking to work out, which has been noted in the web archive. We can work that out later, for now, I need to come up with a workable proposal.⸺(Random)staplers03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't notice that DRN Rule A says that there should not be any back-and-forth discussion between the editors. However, because there has been extended back-and-forth discussion, and it has been civil, we don't need that restriction, so I am changing to DRN Rule B, and I will allow the discussion to continue. We have one editor who wasn't listed. I am adding their name. Continue discussion. If you (the participating editors) conclude that discussion is not making any progress, I will try to refocus it.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads @Conyo14 - Crossroads, your continuous comments on WP:OR annoyed me, so after more searching, yes, policy design RCT is indeed a missing POV - from Policy Design for COVID-19:
However, without conducting a randomized controlled trial, it is highly difficult to compare different government mandates’ efficacies (Haushofer and Metcalf 2020). Given the inherent challenges in launching randomized experiments (e.g., Abaluck et al. 2021), is it feasible to design an observational study with existing data on worldwide mandate adoptions to gauge their relative efficacies?
[Continues on in a paper not about RCTs]
The following is more... anecdotal, but I feel it's worth mentioning:
But Willeke, when he's testing surgical masks and DFM respirator filtration efficiency of all things, and only really needs to cite 30 CFR 11 (citation 23), nonetheless cites 1910.134 in citation 21 [5]. (This paper, if you recall, was cited by the NIOSH TB guide).
Isn't that weird? The POV slant of over-focusing on 1910.134 doesn't seem unheard of.
I would be careful, Crossroads, about mentioning "OR" over and over and over again without considering the situations in Wikipedia:These are not original research, or the fact people might not have the forethought of looking things up at the moment if they are busy arguing their point. I would also suggest asking for sources respectfully before making a claim about an editor.⸺(Random)staplers09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, heads up: I should have my proposal up in a few hours. It'll take a couple weeks to implement, even though it doesn't change all that much TBH.——Randomstapler's alt21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
I'm going to borrow an idea from copypatrol - creating a '/Temp' page, normally used to rewrite copyright violations. This time, the page will be used to rewrite the lead and the Efficacy sections, as these are in dispute. This will be done outside (main), since the last attempt to rewrite in (main) failed due to reverting. Everyone (including those not listed on DRN) will be allowed to edit the /Temp page, subject to the following:
Set up
Since I was the one to do the initial edit, I will set this up, subject to these steps:
1. Cleaning up the talk page - All current threads will be archived. We'll be starting fresh to avoid biasing new editors.
2. I will set up the temp page with my proposed changes, along with the section headings Lead, Efficacy, and Pinned section. The pinned section will be a place where editors can briefly state policy concerns, or links to articles or odd verification failures that might change a readers point of view, but would break the flow of the article. This will be linked to by {{Unbalanced}} in the Efficacy section, so the issue is made visible to readers with minimal editorializing. If there are any concerns about editor statements, discuss on the talk page.
My mostly final statement. If changes are needed, we can discuss on the talk page later.
To alleviate any concerns, my statement will consist of only the following: Editors should be aware of the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, and should be aware that as of 2024-11-02, there is a mis linked paper for Alamani 2015 (PubMed). [6] (Archive Today). The viewpoint noting the lack of regulatory RCTs is supported by [7]. ⸺(Random)staplers
3. {{in use|two weeks}} will be placed in the Efficacy section on (main), and a comment will be added to the lead warning editors that the lead will be overwritten, and to go to the relevant /Temp page instead.
4. I will link to this DRN thread, and will copy first and second statements from the DRN thread (not involving this proposal) and collapse them. (Doing it this way should prevent any more controversial statements being made while the page is being set up, while providing accessible but optional context.)
The proposal will be collapsed separately, and titled "/Temp editing rules." Once that's done, people can begin editing for two weeks (around November 17th or later). The deadline can also be extended if necessary if /Temp is still not stale.
Editing
Because the /Temp page is already obscured from the public, reverting other users is discouraged. Please let it be and talk it out--contents will not be merged if not settled. If any unwanted reverting occurs, dispassionately point it out and ask to self-revert. Edits should be continually improved under Wikipedia:Bold-refine.
Once set up is done, copy-pasting will be discouraged, due to potential copyvio problems, plus the fact that verifying sources is important.
Merging to (main)
Some time after the two week mark, around (November 17th or later), if /Temp is stable, I will decide if /Temp, as it stands from the last edit that is not mine is stable enough to merge into (main). If it is, I will do the merging with the required attribution. If I miss an attribution, a minor dummy edit can be inserted after the fact. Pinned section with editor statements will be added to the talk page, and pinned. All sections will be then be closed two weeks later, around December 1st or later.
In the event no one happens to edit the '/Temp' page, or if it is not clear to me that '/Temp' is stable, or if there are any other doubts, I will ask @Robert McClennan, or someone else, to do the merging.
Steps to follow if '/Temp' merging is reverted.
Reverting at this point borders on disruptive editing and filibustering. However, if this were to occur, an RFC will be set up as to whether to prefer the (main) article, or the one in /Temp. DRN parties should refrain from voting. @Robert McClennan can close this RFC.
If you understand point 4, and there are no questions or statements to the contrary, the process will begin sometime on or after November 3rd (UTC). Once the process in Set up has been implemented, we can close this DRN request.
I am not prepared to accept this proposal (the final judge and jury status status Randomstaplers assigns themself is particularly egregious). A WP:LOCALCON cannot deprive other editors their say. Note this whole face mask/COVID/RCT question has been subject to previous in-depth discussion with many editors to arrive at where we are (e.g.[8]). If Randomstaplers wants to draft alt text, they should do so in their userspace. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Bon courage The initial set up is done by me for practicality reasons - because I drafted the proposal. I've demonstrated I always stop to discuss first when someone reverts, so there should be nothing behaviorally that could go wrong, especially with this detailed procedure. You've also seen me cease all editing after starting this DR thread.
Nothing will change on mainspace save for one template and one comment. That's it.
Closing this edit, as I described in the proposal above, will be deferred to Robert McClenon in extenuating circumstances. If you want me to always defer to a third party before closing, we can do that.
As for discussion in [9], well, it's missed what we discussed just above, along with new sources. So that warrants some sort of procedure for controlled changing of the article. If editing mainspace directly is unacceptable, this is much more conservative.⸺(Random)staplers06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage - It's because I have a feeling that there are more people that want to change the article based on discussions above. Also, the DRN process is slow and naturally excludes non-parties while the process is going on. That's not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia.⸺(Random)staplers06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not recognize your preposterous new process and will ignore it while continuing to edit Wikipedia according to the well-established community norms described in the WP:PAGs. I thought this DRN might actually discuss some concrete proposals and achieve something. But if you're out you're out. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Your personal analysis of the 1910.134 regulation, of how Cochrane linked to other sources, of the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster (???), etc is a confusing jumble of original research. None of this is based on following policies and guidelines like WP:MEDRS. Crossroads-talk-16:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crossroads - If you read the statement above, you'll see that 1910.134 is not included. The reason why I brought up 1910.134, and the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, is to provide additional context for my confusion.
My point is: you shouldn't keep pressing people's confusion or beliefs - you should be leading them (or asking questions) that go to the correct sources. If they have sources they might lead somewhere, I suggest you drop the issues in the process that led them there. Like I said, not everyone has their sources remembered.
You seem to be pushing all the effort on me to find sourcing. While there is an obligation for the person asked to provide sourcing, at some point, providing sourcing yourself, with justification, might be helpful to the other party to drop the issue, or understand what sourcing may be needed.
As for the policy you cited, this is all for @Conyo14, who joined this conversation. You seem to be ignoring that fact when citing NOTGETTINGIT.
I agree with Crossroads. This is OR. The content you want to produce is not viable. Plus, you are asking to add content that for the most part, no one agrees on the wording. Finally, you cannot claim the edits shall proceed per WP:OWN, especially since there doesn't seem to be a resolution in sight. I personally say that the wording of what's there isn't great, but what you want to include does not make it better.
Original research includes pointing out two sources that contradict each other, or don't cite other sources, or cite the wrong sources. You may have a different discussion on that. E.g "This source says this, while this source says this" is okay. "This source says this, but doesn't cite this source in the process" is OR, not okay. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 - Yes, but under OR by editors, so long as it isn't incorporated in the article, if it leads to more reliable sources, like this one (15 above), it might be worthwhile. Of course, it would be if it was pointed out in a more respectful manner, IMO.⸺(Random)staplers17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has stalled. We will go back to DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Answer questions by the moderator. Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. I will repeat the starting question. State concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to implement contribution, with some changes (not shown in this diff): What is done:
First paragraph is already implemented.
Summary of what will need to be added, in addition to contribution:
{{unbalanced}} in the efficacy section, due to this this paper on regulation, mentioned above. The linked talk page section will mention this.
Instead of mentioning the source C's link problems in the article (currently described in parenthesis like this) and disrupting the flow, the linked talk page section will mention the linking problem.
In other words, I will copy the statement I created above (and collapsed) in the proposal.
Implementation of CIDRAP news can be delayed for now.
I'm more concerned about the flow of the lead and the Efficacy section, per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, as well as the regulation paper, while relevant to the article, being unable to be implemented to no research being conducted.
This is because considerations have to be made with regards to [12] and [13] noting the influence on Wikipedia on science. The missing evidence noted in the regulation paper has to be noted. ⸺(Random)staplers19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late addition: The "for example" phrasing might problematic, and why people might think it is OR, despite not being OR (thread mode consolidation was my focus at the time). That will be removed in a future revision.⸺(Random)staplers16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late(r) possible expansion: I had a look through Retraction Watch and found this paper with an expression of concern. News coverage on Australian ABC. In case there are concerns about non-RCT studies being perfectly done or something, this could serve as an interesting counterpoint in the "efficacy" section. This non-RCT was conducted in Australia.
Another late (and hopefully the last) expansion: The NIOSH TB guide mentioned alternative respirators, like Powered air-purifying respirators instead of disposables for use in healthcare. Maybe we shouldn't be over-focusing on disposables.
I've said what I can. Unfortunately, the content at this point is borderline OR and should not proceed. It feels like an essay or a research paper based on the content, which is not what Wikipedia is. I do know the language can be altered a bit better. Regardless of where the language falls, I shall accept the outcome based on the moderator's judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns being expressed that one editor wants to add content that other editors think is original research. Wikipedia has a noticeboard to try to answer questions about original research, which is the Original Research Noticeboard. My experience has been that questions posted there very seldom get answered. If any editor is willing to try posting a query there, we can put this discussion on hold while seeing if there is an answer. Alternatively, there is a more active Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which is also a reasonable place to ask about original research. I suggest that one of the editors identify what the content is that is questioned, and that one of the editors post an inquiry either at the Original Research Noticeboard or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. If we try ORN with no results, someone can then raise the issue that that noticeboard is inactive, but that isn't the issue here. The article is. Will someone please summarize what the original research issue is? Either someone can post an inquiry to a noticeboard, or I will post an inquiry to a noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly not sure what Randomstaplers exactly wants to add or change at this point. Their proposal seems to keep changing, and I find their comments hard to follow. They above, under "Third statements", seemingly want to add an "unbalanced" tag indefinitely to the article, as well as a news article as though it is a MEDRS. These are clearly inappropriate. But then they seemingly walk some of this back subsequently, so who knows at this point. All I ask is that they cease (if not already) trying to add any news articles and any attempts to personally deconstruct the Cochrane review (via tag or in text), and represent sources accurately. Crossroads-talk-22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randomstaplers, WP:Inaccuracy is an essay and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. It is no sort of "decision". Again, your personal analysis of the quality of the Cochrane review is completely irrelevant here. As we've said many times before, criticism of Cochrane's conclusions by other WP:MEDRS is fine to add. If you need a quote, here it is from MEDRS: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. I'm not going to compromise on not adding personal analysis to an article, either in the text or via a tag. If you want us forcefully overruled, you can try an RfC, otherwise I don't think there's anything left to discuss. Crossroads-talk-20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what the original research issue is. The edits, if they are problematic, could be sorted speedily if I was given actual, pointed, quoted criticism, instead of this hand-waving-point-to-policy. Then I could have something to work from when I'm trying to created a revised edit.
As for the way I edit, and the constant changing of what I want to change in the article... look: information does not magically come all at once, especially since this is a volunteer effort. I make statements- and the reasonable thing to do (IMO) is to ask for sources to back them up. (I ask myself this for months, and that's how certain articles end up with lots of edits over time, and also because I know I make a lot of mistakes.) And as one can see now, the sources/references are now coming.
If the criticism is that the way I present this information is problematic... well, in the future, please just say it. We can always strike things out and self-collapse irrelevant information.
I personally still think the mislinked Cochrane Source for Alamani 2015 is a problem, and it was the original impetus for the refinement of the "Efficacy" and lead sections. If that is original research, that might be a problem- it could very well mean that editorial decision in WP:Inaccuracy could count as original research, which seems to run counter to that consensus.
I think that the best way to resolve the question of original research requires that I suspend the rule against editing the article. The filing editor should insert the content that they want to add to the article, or at least one of the statements that they want to add. Rather than reverting it, the other editor should then ask the original research noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard for an opinion on whether it is original research. If the question is asked at ORN, be ready not to get an answer, and then to go to NPOVN.
Alright, I'll try to think of another way to rewrite both sections this weekend, incorporating the new sources I just discovered.
By the way, just as a sanity check for myself, @Robert McClenon, how much of the article should be edited at once? Should I do one paragraph at a time, or... should I rewrite a section in my sandbox and wait for statements first before incorporating? ⸺(Random)staplers05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size of the edit that I am recommending should be the edit that you want to refer to a noticeboard. Include no more in the edit than you think that the volunteers at the noticeboard can understand and respond to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since whatever they want to say about the Cochrane review has been the biggest sticking point, I'd suggest they focus only on whatever they want to propose that is specifically about that at this point (if anything) rather than try to rewrite multiple entire sections again. Adding/changing a bunch of stuff all together, even including stuff that is unlikely to be controversial, is confusing and creates intractable discussions.
I'd rather do an RfC than another noticeboard discussion so we get a final consensus and closure. I don't want to discuss this issue perpetually. Crossroads-talk-23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cited Special:PermanentLink/1251723011 as the edit the initial edit I intended to make, and since most of the changes in the section "Efficacy", I'll limit myself to that section. (The changes to the lead can come later).
Basically, I made some changes to up the neutrality of the language used, correct some errors in the refs after checking them, rearranging paragraphs that were not properly arranged earlier, since AFAIK, that is not the main concern regarding this edit (and I haven't yet received a pointed criticism with regards to solving article problems per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode.)
Due to the Source C's (Cochrane's) controversy by (not cited or added in this diff) refs in source J and source P, it is placed in it's own line.
As for the mislinks in the Cochrane Source, I've decided to relegate it to the <ref> tags- previous edits adding notes here on other articles seem to be uncontroversial. As of November 8th, the PubMed link is still linking to the wrong paper.
Stop inventing process. The bottom line is: you need to achieve consensus for edits, and you're unlikely to do for something which poisons the well of what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying. You can try it here, at a noticeboard, or at the article Talk page. But it need to happen for any change to stick. So far, I (and others it seems) remain unconvinced. Maybe you should drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So Randomstaplers has started editing the article again, in a problematic way. So I assume the DRN is over. There seems to be an attempt to hide the substantive changes (misrepresenting the Cochrane source) behind some gnome work afterwards. This is getting very tedious. I have reverted. I still haven't seen any concise statement of what the problem is that Staplers is trying to fix. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randomstaplers - Stop edit-warring. My instructions about the original research were sloppy. I did not mean that you should obvert any reverted edits, but that you should ask about them at a noticeboard. Do not lecture User:Bon courage about addressing the moderator. They erased the notice of this DRN. They didn't agree to the rules, and really are an interrupter, but that does not mean that you can take on my role of lecturing them. User:Bon courage - Do you want to take part in this moderated discussion that you previously declined by erasing the notice?
I see that the article has been restored to its status quo. We will go back to DRN Rule D. Leave the article alone. My experiment in allowing editing was a failure.
User:Randomstaplers - If there is one paragraph or section that you want to add to the article, ask for an opinion as to whether it is original research at a noticeboard. Do not add it and then request permission.
User:Randomstaplers - The next time that I ask a question and ask for a concise answer, I want a concise answer, and will fail this discussion if the answer is as long as the previous answers have been. Propose one addition, and ask at a noticeboard whether it is original research.
Okay, let's start with this addition. This will be added at the end of source C, the Cochrane source <ref>: Verification note: As of 9 November 2024[update], the Aelami 2015 PubMed link does not link to the correct paper.Archive Today. ⸺(Random)staplers05:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the links to a paper in wrong in a source? You might want to notify the publisher, but Wikipedia is for summarizing accepted knowledge, not for novel notes about trivial errata. Especially if the suspicion is that it's being used to poison a source. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bon courage - I apologize. I see that the template is on your talk page, and that User:Randomstaplers said that you deleted it. Maybe they had two views of your talk page and added it to one view, and then didn't see it on the other view because the previous version was cached.
The source was already questioned in the article by other sources. The article itself already cites [19]. I also later found [20], which cites [21] (but which is currently a preprint).
The mislinked Alamani 2015 is something that I found last month. I found it particularly problematic, since the mislinked paper also talks about N95s, but which did not seem to follow OSHA regulations detailed in 29 CFR 1910. If someone rushed through the references, they might miss this, as I initially did. That's why there needs to be a comment here.
Taken in total, the sources complaining about the review, as well as the mislinked reference, this feels like something that needs to be addressed.
I've been trying to think about the best way to address this, per WP:inaccuracy - from inserting text (not great, but again, keeping all these consensus in mind is not ideal), to {{unbalanced}}, to what has been done in this edit, a small footnote in the references. This last approach I think is the best at the moment.
I think this matter might be better handled in a future village pump. In the meantime, I need to take a mental break for reasons I described on Robert's talk page.
If no one wants to continue this DRN, I'll give you the go ahead to close it. And I'll go ahead and archive the remaining talk pages following closure. ⸺(Random)staplers05:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Closed as apparently abandoned. After the suggestion was made by the moderator that an RFC be used, there has been no subsequent discussion. Continue or resume discussion on the talk page. If an RFC is used, please be sure that it is neutrally worded. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I think a diagram in the article should be deleted. Three other editors agree, one does not. I tried applying the suggested compromise by Chetvorno but it was reverted. I asked for input on the Physics wiki project. I don't know what to do next.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Per the large block of info on the top of this page, you are required to notify the involved users of this discussion on their talk page (you can use this template or a personal message). However, I've already done so for you, so don't worry about it. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussion, I think you have all made your positions clear and have not changed each other's minds. I think at this point, you simply make a formal proposal on the talk page of the article to remove the image and let the other editors have their vote. If there is a clear consensus to remove the image, then you remove it. If an entrenched editor, then continues to revert the will of the consensus, then you ask for help resolving the dispute. Constant314 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I already make the formal proposal and three editors plus myself agreed to remove. But one does not. So what to do?
On the one hand, there is probably not much to be gained by moderated discussion. On the other hand, the way to resolve this content issue appears to be a Request for Comments. I am ready to work with one or more editors to develop a neutrally worded RFC on the diagram in question. If anyone wants assistance with a Request for Comments, please read DRN Rule A, only because it summarizes the need for civility. I don't think that anyone has been uncivil, but a reminder about civility is often useful.
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.
User EncreViolette and I seem to be stuck (much discussed on the talk page) on what constitute reliable sources and notable sources, as well as what items (and their relevant sources) should be included or not on this kind of a list page. I think it's time for some outside and better understanding of WP guidelines--speaking for myself here. Encre has stated Every entry on a list does not have to be notable (WP:NLIST). From WP:CSC, out of the three selection criteria, the last (everything that is verifiably a member of the group) seems to fit this the most. It gives 32kb as an upper size limit for this sort of list, and this list is currently 12.52kb. I want to understand if Encre is interpreting this correctly. Also, a third user, DeputyBeagle, has earlier argued The scope of this list is too broad to add every proshot musical, so per WP:LSC we should limit it to notable proshots, or at the very least notable productions and A page from a reliable secondary source would be good - Any articles from a major source would be ideal. On 21 September, I began to remove any Takarazuka Revue and other plays that were unsourced or used sources that do not clearly meet notability (largely, primary or self-published sources from what I can tell, though they are all in Japanese, which is obviously an obstacle for me). Encre expressed being upset with my removals on 3 November.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A list of verifiably professionally filmed stage musicals is not too broad.
If the list is limited to works that already have English Wikipedia pages, it becomes redundant. There are far too many non-English works that don't have pages even if they are notable. Also, by list rules, this seems like a list that should be open to all professional, major, verifiable entries even if they aren't notable enough for pages.
If the list is too dominated by one or another category, dividing it is a better solution than cutting information that could be useful to someone (either someone casually looking for what to watch next, or someone trying to get a picture of the industry worldwide).
(Only a small portion of the entries removed were from Takarazuka, but they do film everything, and have for decades. People interested in the topic might want to know that.)
This dispute has been going on for quite a while now. It's really about how broad we keep the criteria for inclusion. IMO it's far too broad right now to be genuinely useful as a page. Either the scope of the page should be limited, or we should agree on some notability criteria. Especially given the large amount of Takarazuka Revue productions that are part of the dispute, who as far as I can tell seem to film large swathes of their output
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.
A few editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. I brought this to the NPOV noticeboard and was stonewalled.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
In the past the dispute has gone unresolved due to mass unwillingness to even participate in discussion. In order for a firm consensus to finally be reached, many editors need to engage.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, please check whether there are any other editors who should also be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Please move or remove if this is not the right way to participate. My notes only apply to the Kemal Atatürk article; I have no problem with the info being included (with appropriate brevity to avoid UNDUE) in Zsa Zsa Gabor] Exclude -- As the nom notes, the argument over this possibly apocryphal dalliance has been ongoing for over a decade.
Sourcing: Gabor's 'tell-all autobiography' is the only primary source for this event. She claims to have been deflowered by Atatürk. All secondaries are derivative of that primary. None explore the merit of the claim. Gabor get nothing more than a brief mention in the only source about Kemal Atatürk. The others are about the 'Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World' [the title of one cite]. Zsa Zsa was a proto-Kardashian, so fluff pieces are arguably useful for her article. They simply are not reasonable sources on a man who had enormous impact on the modern world.
Substance: In what possible way does this illuminate Atatürk? What does the reader learn about an international leader and founder a modern state by discovering that he had a brief, consensual affair with a woman who famously quipped: When asked how many husbands she had had, she used to say: "You mean other than my own?"[2] If the claim was that Atatürk took the virginity of, say, Rock Hudson or Rin Tin Tin, this would merit a mention; a tryst with a beautiful, famously promiscuous, female human just does not. It is wonderful gossip, great tabloid news, and cool trivia for pub night, but those are not what we're building.
I didn't fight to take it out until it again hit the Talk page. Policies, guidelines and essays are clear: The fact that this happened (a debatable statement itself) is not enough to warrant inclusion per BUTITSTRUE. This alleged tryst is not important to the subject of the article. Cheers Last1in (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two parties agree, and if at least two parties disagree about article content. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
I see two related but different questions about policies and guidelines that apply to the articles. The first is whether Gabor's autobiography is a reliable source for her account of the sexual encounter with Ataturk. That question can be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This discussion will be paused if necessary to wait for an answer from RSN. The second is whether a mention of the reported affair is undue weight in the article about Ataturk.
An editor who had not originally been listed has made a statement, and so has been added to the list of parties to this dispute.
Are there any questions about policies, or about how this discussion may be conducted? If not, my questions are whether the editors agree to the ground rules, and what changes to the article are in controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue.
Edit: After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile.
My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away.
As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Bannertalk03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS.
As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature.
On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just added the disputed content to the Great Famine (Ireland) article while this issue is in dispute resolution. Now the mediators can't see how that section used to read before you started adding content (check edit history). I opened a section in talk alerting the editors there that this issue is currently in DR and that you've added some of the content that's in dispute.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genocides in history (before World War I) discussion
Few users are changing the political party of former SriLankan PM Dinesh Gunawardene to his initial minor political party. but when he was appointed he was the leader of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna which has won the 2020 Sri Lankan general election. Reliable sources suggest that he is a member of then ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna but these users insists that his initial political party MEP as his party as the PM. However for the next PM Harini Amarasuriya the major political coalition she has contested is given as her party in the next entry.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.