Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 166

Archive 160

←

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

Archive 167

Archive 168

→

Archive 170

Talk:Khalistan movement#Canada_PM_in_lead

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Elephanthunter on 10:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Khalistan movement#Canada PM in lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Elephanthunter (talk · contribs) DBigXray (talk · contribs) Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are discussing whether Trudeau's comments belong in the lede, how they should be framed, and whether the words "militant" and "extremist" are applicable to the recent resurgence of the Khalistan movement. To go into further detail, it appears there are two sides of debate for three different topics. My arguments are for the following: Summarizing Khalistan movement activity in the lead, and featuring specific peaceful and militant activities in the article. The word "militant" does not generally violate NPOV, but when the recent activity was mostly peaceful (such as Referendum 2020 , , , or protests just last week on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star , , or recent police suppression and brutality ), it's unbalanced to simply summarize the recent activity as militant in the lead. Mentioning countries that have significant Khalistan support (or lack of) in the lead, but leaving specific political details (such as Trudeau's statements) to the article. Including Trudeau's comments without context is misleading. He made those comments in response to accusations from Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh, who actually accused Canada of supporting the Khalistan movement . And even after that statement, the subject of Canada's relation to the Khalistan movement is a matter of intense debate Mentioning the movement petered out in the 1990s, with the context of police crackdown. Summarizing 2018 Khalistan movement activity as an uptick "recent activity" or "support". There has been a significant uptick and Khalistan activity. This is just not my opinion, but from actual headlines and debate in recent news (, , , ). As with the other two topics, the matter of 2018 support deals with current events, and as such there are no scholarly works available to cite from either side. This is as opposed to: Prominently featuring recent militant Khalistan movement activities in the lead Featuring Canada PM Trudeau's statement about not supporting separatists in the lead Saying the movement petered out in the 1990s in the lead, without summarizing the uptick in recent Khalistan movement activity --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried engaging the editors, reading the suggested material, and suggesting alternative solutions. How do you think we can help? Hopefully someone who is uninvolved can bring us to a civil agreement, as I think all involved parties are very opinionated. I'm afraid that if I might get not get a positive response with proposing solutions, as our conversation is already spiraling out of control. Summary of dispute by DBigXray I am aware of the guidelines of DRN but I will have to take names to clearly explain the dispute. I should clarify first that I am in no way associated with this movement, Neither support nor oppose. So there is no WP:COI from my side, I am editing it as its in my general topic of interest WP:MILHIST. The article needed lot of work and I have been working lately on improving the sourcing and quality of this article and LEAD, when EH reverted my and AG's edits and the dispute started. To me it appears to be a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:SYNTH. Anyway I have added some context on the talk page for mediators to understand who is supporting which version. I am still waiting for satisfactorily sourced answers to my Questions on the talk page. EH has not answered the Questions yet. Dispute 1: the word "Militant" and "Extremist" vs "Groups" and "Supporters". Multiple RS in talk calls the arrest of armed shooters and criminals as Militants and extremists, but EH Calls them loaded words and keeps changing them to "Groups" and "supports" thereby watering down the information and wrongly claiming WP:NPOV while not providing any valid source for this claim. Dispute 2: Adding Canada PM's Statement in LEAD on Canada Not allowing revival of seperatist Khalistan movement but EH considers this as trivial and not relevant for the lead discounting the fact that Canada is Home to second largest Sikh population in the world and one of the Major terrorist attack Air India Kansihk bombing happened in Canada. hence such Declaration of Country's position is important to be stated, but EH is discounting this as WP:UNDUE and fringe. he did propose to add this in the lead but he wants to add few extra details of his India's trip that are not worthy of The article's lead. The said information is all there in the body in relevant Article section. In addition EH as said above, keeps on claiming the "resurgence" of the movement when there is already a consensus on the talk page here that the movement has petered out. Simply ignoring the talk page consensus. I have not presented any ref here as The sources for all my edits are already added in the talk page for a review.--DBigXray 14:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC) [Update] After reading the updated Summary from EH, I suspect that this is also a case WP:COI and/or WP:INCOMPETENCE. The Khalistani isurgency petered out in 1990s is widely pusblished fact and not my WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, Challenging this fact and saying that the movement never petered out is very Strong statement and would need equally strong sources to be justified. Putting links of stray incidents of sikh extremists and shooters being arrested does not automagically transalates to an inference that Movement never died. This is text book example of WP:SYNTHESIS So far none of the evidences put forward by EH supports his claims. --DBigXray 21:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Adamgerber80 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sorry, I am running short of time. This is just a placeholder to acknowledge that I have seen this discussion and will get back to this in a day or two. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply. And I also declare that I have no COI with this page and have watched over the page for quite some time to ensure NPOV. I have stated below the primary issues for discussion that I am concerned with. Issue 1: Is the movement become active again? This is a discussion which as spanned two talk page discussions Talk:List of active separatist movements in Asia#Khalistan Separatist Movement and Talk:Khalistan_movement#Canada_PM_in_lead. There have been recent WP:RS news reports of people being arrested under association with the movement (). This is being translated that the movement is now active again which is WP:SYNTH since the source does not make any such claim. On the contrary there are multiple WP:RS which state that the movement faded away in the 1980s (,,). As I have stated before in the talk page discussion, we need multiple scholarly sources which state that the movement has indeed revived before terming it as active again. And one needs to understand that stray incidents by no means indicate that an entire movement has suddenly become active. There has to be sustained incidents before a scholar would declare it as such. In the talk page discussion, there was a comparison with a volcanic explosion which, IMO, is completely incorrect here. Movements are not light switches which are turned on or off instantly. I am yet to see a single scholarly WP:RS which states that indeed the movement has been revived. Issue 2: Does the use of the word militant violated WP:NPOV? I have edited many pages in the general India-Pakistan area, including Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and Insurgency in Balochistan where the word militant is used and is also accepted across many pages. Here I again present scholarly sources (apart from numerous existing WP:RS) which term the movement as a militancy (, , ) while others do refer to the elements in the movement as extremist (,). AFAIK, both of these are acceptable words which but have been termed as "Indian state propaganda" and "not professional" in the Talk page discussion. Issue 3: What should be in the lede? The earlier version of the article did contain that there was some latent support for the movement in other countries and also mentioned that the Canadian PM has stated that the Canadian government did not support it. Now this was a fair and balanced NPOV since it provided the complete picture. Here the first, content like India has "downplayed the existence of the movement" was inserted with no WP:RS stating this but purely on WP:SYNTH that the movement is being revived (see Issue 1). The editor here has not provided a concrete alternate text which belong in the lede. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC) References Talk:Khalistan movement#Canada_PM_in_lead discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @Elephanthunter: As Robert notes, you must notify the other parties before this case can proceed. Use this template and see the instructions at the top of this page. Biblio (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC) This was an oversight on my part. I am admittedly new to dispute resolution :) Thanks @Biblioworm: and @Robert McClenon:! They are now notified. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am ready to act as the moderator for this discussion. Please read the ground rules. In particular, User:Elephanthunter, User:DBigXray, User:Adamgerber80, since this case has been sitting for so long waiting for a moderator, I still expect each of you to reply to my posts at least every 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other's posts, but do reply to my questions and posts. I don't claim to have any knowledge of this subject area; I expect you to provide me with any necessary information. Now: Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they consider to be the key issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC) First statements by editors By DBigXray The summary by each editor above explains the issue quite clearly and also explains why each editor thinks as such. Please do check it. The talk page discussion has the sources each editor is using to support their content. A summary of the talk page discussion is presented above. And as Robert requested, a summary of the above summary is presented below. Is it justified to use the word "Militant" and "Extremist" in the article as used by sources to denote people arrested recently in (early 2018), are they neutral enough for WP:NPOV? or should they be replaced by words such as Terrorists, murderers, shooters or supporters. I believe the words Militant and Extremist are justified to be used, calling them supporters waters down the information. Does Canada PM's Statement about Canada's viewpoint on the movement deserve a place in the LEAD ? I believe it does, reason above in summary. Can the article claim that there is a resurgence in the Khalistan Movement (in 2018 or the near present)? can it be claimed that the movement petered out in the 1990s ? Can it be claimed that the Movement never petered out because some people never stopped supporting it ? Sources say movement petered out and no reliable source say there is a resurgence in the movement. Few arrests and murders does not lead to a conclusion or WP:SYNTHESIS that there is resurgence in the moevment.--DBigXray 13:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) By Elephanthunter The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement to establish a state of "Khalistan" in Punjab (currently occupied by India and Pakistan.) Although the movement waned in the 1990s, it has seen recent support , , , Earlier this year Indian police arrested pro-Khalistan militant activists And on June 1, 2018 (this month), peaceful pro-Khalistan protests erupted , on the anniversary of the Operation Blue Star military operation, which had ended in the destruction of the Golden Temple and the 1984 Sikh Massacre. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh declined to classify this recent activity as a "resurgence", but voiced concern and speculation that pro-Khalistan activity in his region was the result of foreign influence (Canada, Italy, and Pakistan's ISI.) Specifically relevant to our dispute, Singh called Canada's defense minister a "Khalistani sympathizer" and used Canada's support of the Khalistan movement as grounds to refuse meeting Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau last year Canadian House of Commons responded with a motion condemning the Khalistan movement, but the motion faltered after local uproar In an effort to reestablish ties with Singh, Trudeau ultimately visited Punjab, met with Singh, and personally reassured him that Canada would not support the separatists We disagree on three key issues surrounding the Khalistan movement lead summary: Should the movement be classified as militant? The Khalistan movement is mostly peaceful , , , , , . It is unbalanced to portray the movement as militant. Should Trudeau's statements be mentioned in the lead? Diplomatic issues between Trudeau and Amarinder Singh are complex and do not belong in the lead of an article about Khalistan. Including Trudeau's out-of-context response to Singh's accusations is misleading. Has there been a resurgence of the movement? Yes. No reliable sources question this, and many news outlets mention it , , , The primary voice against the term "resurgence" is Amarinder Singh himself --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Second statement by moderator It appears that the issues are as follows: 1. Should the movement be classified as militant? One editor says yes. One editor says that it is unbalanced to describe it as militant. 2. Should Trudeau's statement be mentioned in the lede? One editor says no. Another says yes. It is agreed that it can be mentioned with context in the body of the article. 3. Is there a resurgence of the movement? Two editors say no. One editor says yes. As to classifying the movement, it is often better not to try to categorize movements in the voice of Wikipedia anyway. Would all editors be in agreement with a statement that the movement is variously categorized, and is sometimes considered to be militant? As to point 3, would it again be satisfactory to say that some commentators think that there is a resurgence of the movement, and some think that there is not? Point 2 is not a matter on which we can split the difference. Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph explanation for why or why not to include the statement? Please be concise in your replies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Second statements by editors By DBigXray Hi Robert, Good to have you as a fresh mind into this topic. But before I elaborate my reply, Can you please confirm if you have read the talk page discussion on this dispute. This is a controversial topic and needs a bit of background to reach to a conclusion that has to be backed up by reliable sources and not just WP:PRIMARY sources or news.--DBigXray 19:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC) By Elephanthunter Hey Robert, everything you said sounds very reasonable! Q: Should Trudeau's statement be mentioned in the lede? A: No. There are two reasons placing Trudeau's statement (and only his statement) in the lead is cherry-picking: Trudeau's statement was a direct response to accusations that Canada was, in fact, actively supporting the Khalistan movement That's very contextually important. It's like... if you read an article about a restaurant, you would want to know the chef's promise "I always wash my hands" was literally a response to someone who vocally and repeatedly accused him of the opposite. The quote alone makes it appear as though Canada's official position is anti-Khalistan. But Canada's House of Commons threw out a motion to denounce the Khalistan movement earlier this year due to local uproar Granted, with the above context Trudeau's statement would be balanced and less cherry-picked, but the additional information would really distract from the purpose of the lead. It would be better suited for the body. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC) Third statement by moderator It appears that we have agreement on point 1 and point 3, that we can state that some people have characterized the movement as militant, and that some people say that there has been a resurgence of the movement (with a source). As to the second point, about a statement by Trudeau, who is thousands of miles from Khalistan, the statement isn't currently in the lede. Exactly what statement is being proposed to be inserted into the lede, and why? Since the involvement of Trudeau is at best marginal, a case for including his statement in the lede should be strong. What exactly is being proposed, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Third statements by editors By DBigXray No, the assumption of agreement is wrong. The questions being asked above have all been answered on the talk page. We could have started from the position we left at the talk page and proceeded from that position on this page. Same basic questions like above being raised again and again, (due to a clear lack of understanding of the context as discussed in the talk page) I would now have to explain everything from scratch. And I would need time to respond Since I have to respond with everything now. --DBigXray 18:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC) In any case whether the mods have read the Talk or not. here we go. First some background from that article which clarifies the version that each editor supported in the article. Version 1 (DBX) In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed the recent extremism is backed by Pakistan's ISI and "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK. There is some support from fringe groups abroad, especially in Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement. — [[User:DBigXray added with dif and supports this version ]] References Quoting the other person at length isn't useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Version 2 (EH) Support recently surfaced in early 2018, with some pro-Khalistan groups arrested by police in Punjab. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the revival is backed by a "foreign hand" of Pakistan's ISI, as well as "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK. — [[User:Elephanthunter added with dif and supports this version ]] References 1. Dispute 1: the word "Militant" and "Extremist" vs "Groups" and "Supporters" In the top intro of the dispute above It is alleged that the when the recent activity was mostly peaceful (such as Referendum 2020 , , , When we have news items of extremists activities and arrests of militants. Saying mostly peaceful is again WP:SYNTH not backed up by any reliable source stating the same. Interestingly The three sources presented above are all from Pakistani Media which cannot be considered a Neutral third party media here. Pakistani Media at least for the sourcing of info related to Khalistan Movement fall into the category Politically WP:BIASED source, Government of India have repeatedly called out Pakistani ISI for supporting and aiding Khalistani militants and Khalistani Propaganda through Pakistani Media. one of the link has a Pakistani Politician a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab, Pakistan saying that minorities in Pakistan exercise complete freedom. when a Pakistani newspaper themself say that Persecution of minorities at its all-time high Again it is claimed about the protests just last week on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star , , as a recent piece of news item while the fact is these protests are done annually on this anniversary. It cannot be taken as a evidence of any resurgence of the movement. On the contrary there are multiple WP:RS which state that the movement faded away in the 1980s (,, ) Clearly there are incidents (both peaceful and violent, although mostly violent extremist from the Local sources in India) happening in relation to Khalistani movement but should be classify this as a WP:FRINGE or stray incidents or should it be claimed as a resurgence ? Certainly we as wiki editors are not in position to decide that, and we have to rely on what secodary WP:RS are stating. To quote AG above we need multiple scholarly sources which state that the movement has indeed revived before terming it as "active again" or any other form of a sentence that means to imply the same. Now coming to the Question of Would all editors be in agreement with a statement that the movement is variously categorized, and is sometimes considered to be militant? My answer is No. It is "mostly" a violent extremist movement with mostly being the keyword. a few instances of peaceful march or a few instances of shooting does not define it. The conclusion has to be made not on the basis of news articles related to stray incidents but books or scholarly materials that make a consclusion after an analysis of all the incidents. Anyway we are not here disputing about the present nature of the protests (violent or peaceful) but the approporiate word that should be used to mention the arrests of these several gentlemen in India. The dispute #1 as I understand was should they be called "extremists" or just "supporters" ? --DBigXray 19:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC) 2. Dispute 2: Adding Canada PM's Statement in LEAD on Canada Not allowing revival of seperatist Khalistan movement. Canada is Home to second largest Sikh population in the world after India and one of the Major terrorist attack Air India Kanishka bombing had happened in Canada by Khalistani terrorists in Canada. Indian ex Envoy is here quoted Canada is the only country to provide a platform to Khalistanis. Hence such Declaration of Country's position is important to be stated, it cannot be stated as WP:UNDUE and fringe. Stating that this statement must only be seen in relation to India trip is fallacious. Few extra details of his India's trip that are not worthy of The article's lead. The said information about trip and detail is all there in the body in relevant Article section. Whatever statement was made from Tudeau who is currently the PM of the CANADA, is the official position of Canada as a Country and This statement is clearly quoted in the lead as Trudeau said. He is the Official representative of the Country Canada. Unless he categorically says that statement of "Not allwoing Khalistani Revival" is his personal opinion, your points will be valid. But No. His statement was loud and clear when he said his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. Even the link that was shared by the opposing editor says "Canada has been unequivocal, both myself, all my ministers, our government on a policy of one united India. We have, we have been very strong on that and we'll continue to be," said Trudeau . It is not like he came out of the meeting and returned back and after reaching Canada went back on his statement to say, he "supports Independent Khalistan", no he never rescinded his statements. This Canada PM's statement of Not allowing a Revival of Khalistan movement is Canada's Policy and he merely re-iterated it during the Visit to India and this will remain Canada's official position until there is another PM who comes and changes this and says the opposite. Canada PM declaration deserves the place in Lead because of the Huge Sikh Population (after India) and the Several extremist incidents and support that Khalistanis got from Canada (e.g. Kanishk Plane Bombing happened from Canada). The fact that there are some Sikh people sympathetic to the Khalistani cause, does not mean Canada as a nation is asking for Khalistan. Canada's official statement on Khalistan hence deserves a space in the Lead and more details in the article body. References This link posted above is irrelavant to the Statement by Treadue. They wanted to pass a motion and then decided to pass some other motion. It is posted above in the second arguement saying Canada's House of Commons threw out a motion to denounce the Khalistan movement earlier this year. well when we go and read the full article, the above statement is a blatant mis-representation of the source. the article actaully says The Conservative Party decided early Thursday not to proceed with a House of Commons motion that a Canadian Sikh organization says labels its community as “terrorists.” That motion was clearly not well worded and hence was rightly abandoned. Anyway that is not the main point. The main point here being did the House of Commons pass any resolution rejecting Trudeau's statement ? did they (House of Commons ) add any clarification to that ? Did they add any addendum to it ? did they add any conditions to the PMs statement like "statement was only to please Indians and no other relevance." ? The answer to all these Questions is clear "No". So this news link adds nothing to our dispute discussion. I am ready for a consensus as long as the text is backed up by strong WP:RS, We cannot proceed by making middle line statements to add up in the article that has no backing from secondary sources. Any statement that has to go into the article has to be backed accordingly with a reliable source that are "not cherry picked items of news of incidents".--DBigXray 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Maybe I wasn't clear when I asked the parties to be concise. Pulling a long quote from the other editor out to recycle it isn't useful, at least not if the moderator is trying to get the issues summarized. I will try again. It isn't necessary to rehash what was said on the talk page. It is necessary to summarize it concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC) It appears on points 1 and 3 that the two editors are in disagreement as to whether the article should say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that (1) the movement is militant; (3) the movement is having a resurgence. The compromise appears to be to split the difference and say that some say (1) and some say (3), providing sources. If there is disagreement on these points, be civil and concise. If either editor wants something about Trudeau in the lede, please specify it, briefly. (The lede must be brief.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors By Elephanthunter I have no arguments for mentioning Trudeau in the lede (3). The proposed compromise for (1) and (2) sound like a good middle ground. To respond to some criticism above, mainstream news outlets are acceptably reliable on Wikipedia. Also, the beginning of the linked WP:RS states in bold that all majority and minority views should be covered. The proposed compromise accomplishes that. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC) By DBigXray On point 1, I had added this text, In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab. Reason: The final section of the lead should include an approprite and reasonable summary of the recent occurings that are worthy of additions. There has been multiple arrests of armed Khalistani terrorists involved in murders in the Punjab region which I felt deserved a mention. The dispute is regarding the wording to be used to describe it. The dispute here is not whether the movement is militant or peaceful, Wikipedia is not into the business of judging the nature of a movement (extremist or peaceful). source calls them Terrorists. I support toning it down to militant. What is the justification of calling them "supporters" and not armed militants ? On point 3, some people say that there has been a resurgence of the movement (with a source). I disagree with this addition to the article LEAD, Can I have a WP:RS source that states the same. We can then discuss this point. On Point 2. about a statement by Trudeau, the statement isn't currently in the lede as I had introduced it and it was removed and replaced by another version(currently in article) that I do not support hence disputed. This statement below is being proposed to be inserted into the lede, reason follows. Verson 1 : While the role of movement has been downplayed, militant modules funded by foreign supporters are still being arrested in Punjab as on early 2018. There is some support from fringe groups abroad, especially in Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement. Reason: The final section of the lead should include an approprite and reasonable summary of the article sections Khalistan_movement#Support_from_outside_India and Khalistan_movement#Present_situation. The section includes major countries with significant Sikh population, "some" of which are sympathetic to the Khalistan cause, many of these sympathesizers are supporting and actively funding terrorist incidents in India. Canada is Home to second largest Sikh population in the world after India and one of the Major terrorist attack Air India Kanishka bombing had happened in Canada by Khalistani terrorists in Canada. Khalistan_movement#Khalistan_militant_outfits names some of these groups. Canada based groups terrorists are also involved in recent politicial murders in India. Indian ex Envoy is here quoted Canada is the only country to provide a platform to Khalistanis. India alleges that the perpetrators of these incidents are supported by Khalistani sympathisers that are based in Canada. These give an impression to the reader that Canada is covertly encouraging these incidents by not taking action against these groups. Hence such Declaration of Country's official position is important to be stated in the lead. official position: Canada is strongly committed to "one united India" and is serious about cracking down on extremism.--DBigXray 15:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC) References Fifth statement by moderator Point 1. The use of the term "militant" in the specific context of arrests in Punjab seems reasonable. Is there agreement? Point 2. We seem to be going all around and not getting anywhere about whether to quote Trudeau in the lede. It may seem this way because I am looking either for something concise or for nothing, not for something long. Can something concise be proposed, or do we have agreement to say nothing in the lede, but long discussion can be included in the article body? Point 3. Any comment about a resurgence of the movement must be reliably sourced. Please provide a version and a source, or we can agree to omit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors By DBigXray Point 1. Yes I agree. Point 2. in addition to Version 1 above, Let me propose a few more versions for the sake of conensus. Please note that this will have to be at the end of the lead and a summary of support in UK and canada. I am OK to drop Trudeau's name as shown in few versions below. Version 2 There exists some support from a few Sikh groups outside India, especially in UK and Canada. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement. Version 3 There exists some support from fringe Sikh groups outside India, especially in UK and Canada. Canada has declared that it supports a united India and would not support the revival of the separatist movement. Version 4 There exists some support from fringe Sikh groups outside India, especially in UK and Canada. Canada has declared that it supports a united India and would crack down on the extremists to prevent a revival of the separatist movement. Point 3. I agree to omit. My rationale after reading whatever source presented above is Fringe support and an annual protest on Anniversary of major incident ( Operation Blue Star) cannot by mentioned as resurgence of the movement. None of the presented source claim a "Resurgence" of the movement and Infact Trudeau even said he will not allow to Reignite the Khalistan movement. Wrongly claiming that there is a resurgence, while we have reliable sources saying they will not allow resurgence (or say there is no resurgence) seems contradictory and such addition of WP:OR will only confuse the reader. The article sub-section explains more on this see Khalistan_movement#Abatement_of_extremism --DBigXray 16:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC) References By Elephanthunter 1. We should mention those arrests, and that the people involved were militant. If we're including specific events, is it fair to mention both peaceful and militant events? I think my concern was that 2018 events were not all militant. Specifically, I would like to include the mass protests on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star and the somewhat heavy-handed response from Punjab's SGPC task force. 2. I would prefer to say nothing about this in the lede, but rather in the body. Also, I'm opposed to the suggestions by DBigXray. I think it is sufficient to mention the list of countries and leave it at that. The word "fringe" is also an unnecessary addition. I might be able to agree with There is some support from pro-Khalistan groups in Italy, Canada, and the UK. 3. There are plenty of news articles that mention a resurgence . The Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh (the same one who governs the SGPC, which played the loud music and beat Khalistan movement protestors) was asked in an interview about whether there is a resurgence. He has been the main voice against the notion. --Elephanthunter (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC) UPDATE: DBigXray correctly pointed out the Chief Minister of Punjab does not govern the SGPC, so I've struck through that part of my above comment. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC) References By DBigXray Point 1. This line is being added for recent occurings. What is the reson for adding it in the LEAD ? The annual ritual protest on the anniversary happens every year. Even the source that has been quoted in support mentions this This is not the first time such clashes have broken out, as violent clashes have been common at the Temple on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star in successive years.. Alse this source is a Pakistani Media suffering from clear Anti-Indian (Political WP:BIAS) hence unreliable. Kindly do not produce Pakistani sources as they are fomenting Khalistani terrorism. [UPDATE] Suffice to say, WP:BIASED sources should not be used for controversial articles or to support controversial facts. Point 2. What is the reason for disagreeing with the word "Fringe" this word is not Original research and completely appropriate in the context. The word Fringe is also per source. Would like to hear your reason and a better word to replace this. These terrorist organisations are not mainstream and do not have the support of Sikh religion as a whole. this needs to be clarified, the word Fringe appropriately does that. Point 3. I will reply later, I have to check each of them for WP:SYNTH. If you can add the Quote from the source it will make things faster and easier. Incidents or murder or arrest does not mean resurgence, The statement that there is "Resurgence" of Khalistani Movement" is a very strong statement and needs equally strong and relaible WP:Secondary source and not just WP:NOTNEWS of incidents. --DBigXray 13:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Ok I have reviewed the sources presented above, Please see the comments below. 7 is a news item, about "Separatist and hardline groups are organising events in cities across Canada and North America.". This news is about Canada and N USA with a poster and Quite frankly such happens annually and nothing to get excited about. The journalist is 'expecting'more heat in "months ahead". IMHO Not a strong source or enough to justify the claim. WP:FUTURE 8 is again titled "fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge", They are Anticipiating a rise. Not saying resurgence is there. cant be used as a Strong RS for resurgence either due to WP:FUTURE. 9 Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s ongoing visit to India has made the Khalistan movement a talking point once again. nothing that says about the Resurgence. There was an Emergence of Khalistan Movement in 1980s in India and Canada, This fact is not contested. The article only re hashes the same. Interestingly this is the same event where Trudeau declared No resurgence "The Sikh insurgency petered out in the 1990s. He told state leaders his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan." 10 This is MOS:OPED that again anticipates that the movement may rise. The article among other things state Besides fund raising, many of these gurdwaras display photos of militants killed in Punjab conflict and observe remembrance days such as Operation Blue Star and the post-Indira Gandhi assassination Sikh massacres to keep the memory of the struggle alive. Internet radio stations and social media outlets catering to the Sikh diaspora are openly claiming the resurgence of the Khalistan movement. . This source again cannot be used for Claiming a resurgence. Further Please note that Amarinder Singh is the CM of Punjab and not SGPC president as you are claiming above, see the wiki articles linked. he categorically stated that there is No Resurgence of Khalistan Movement to a direct Question from the interviewer here. Using his statement as a proof of Resurgence will be WP:SYNTH of another level. Kindly understand, had there been an actual "'resurgence' of Khalistan movement", then there would have been numerous Third party sources, journals, books etc WP:SECONDARY sources, talking about the same in great detail as the main subject. The fact that there is none and you have to dig so hard and yet could only manage to get passing mentions of future anticipation, speaks for itself. None of the above sources are solid enough to support the wild claim of Resurgence. I agree to the consensus of removing the word resurgence of the Khalistan Movement as a pure WP:OR. --DBigXray 20:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC) By Elephanthunter 1. "Kindly do not produce Pakistani sources as they are formenting Khalistani terrorism" --- I'm not sure it's reasonable to exclude sources from the entire country of Pakistan. Also, while Operation Blue Star protests may happen every year, are they always referred to as "mass protests"? And are there always beatings? If so, this should be mentioned in the lede. 2. Fringe is a synonym with "extreme", which is contentious and opinionated. We could avoid opinionated words altogether with the summary I've provided. But we should definitely include stats or sources that mention relative level of support within the Sikh community in the lede. Maybe we could mention this in a different lede sentence? There are several sources arguing that Khalistan support is not mainstream within the Sikh community, despite various efforts by Pakistan or India to make it appear so. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [UPDATE Below now that DBigXray has commented on the articles in #3] 3. These articles do not fall under WP:FUTURE. Every single source explains resurgence has happened past-tense, or is ongoing present-tense: Article "7" Title: Khalistani movement in Canada sees sudden resurgence Quote: This renewed movement abroad for a separate Khalistan comes a couple of months after pro-Khalistani elements appeared to be losing traction. Article "8" Title: As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge Quotes: Among the reasons observers see for this trend of resurgence of pro-Khalistan sentiment in Canada is vote-bank politics. Shinder Purewal, professor of political science at the Kwantlen Polytechnic University in British Columbia said, “What has prompted the move is closely related to the success of Sikh politicians directly, or indirectly, associated with Khalistani movement. It’s a bold move to assert the secessionist upsurge in local, provincial and federal governments in Canada, and similarly in UK and USA. It’s a popular move among people who are treated like sub-humans by Indian consulate.' Article "9" Title: As Justin Trudeau visits India, a look back at how Khalistan movement spread in Canada Quote: The fervent support for the Khalistan movement among the Sikh diaspora has been a consistent source of trouble for the Indian government. In 2008, the then prime minister Manmohan Singh had raised concerns over an apparent resurgence of the Khalistan movement in Canada. Extremist politics is known to be a part of most Sikh religious celebrations in these countries. Article "10" Title: Have Hindutva forces in India reignited the Khalistan movement overseas? Quote: The idea for an independent Sikh state is being reignited not from the people or political parties of Punjab, but by Sikh expatriates. The politics of "one nation, one religion, and one leader" by Hindutva nationalistic forces have provided the Sikh diaspora an opportunity to once again mobilise support at home for the cause of Khalistan. India needs to do something before it gets too late. As you can see, all of the above articles distinctly refer to a pro-Khalistan resurgence in the present or past tense. One article even states the Khalistan movement is part of most Sikh religious celebrations in Canada. If you don't agree that there has been a resurgence, can we at least agree that the Khalistan movement is currently active? --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator Well, well. At the beginning I instructed the parties not to reply to each other, but only to reply to me, and to be concise. At statement 4 I again said to be concise. The parties are engaging in back-and-forth discussion with each other, which didn't work on the article talk page, and are not being concise. However, they are being civil. Therefore, as an experiment, I will change the rules and allow back-and-forth discussion for 48 hours to see if it results in agreement. We can at least try. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors By Elephanthunter 48 hours sounds reasonable. I agree both parties are being civil. I believe I was the last person to reply, so I'm awaiting a response to my above queries. We could drag out this conversation forever though, so I'm fine with you jumping in and calling the shots. Anyway, I'll expand a bit on my earlier reply: 1. Pakistan might be trying to incite Indian terrorism, but India censors pro-Khalistan media. They are both biased parties. Unfortunately most coverage for this topic comes from one of these two places. 2. Is the use of the word "fringe" really justified? The Indian Express (which you have used in your own citations) writes, "In 2008, the then prime minister Manmohan Singh had raised concerns over an apparent resurgence of the Khalistan movement in Canada. Extremist politics is known to be a part of most Sikh religious celebrations in these countries." --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC) References by DBigXray 1.it is said that the other party feels adding adding protests, no explanation is given on why it deserves a mentiom in the lead. These protests being annual in nature. 2. "fringe" is as per the source. No credible source given above to contradict this claim. Looks to me a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT There are several sources arguing that Khalistan support is not mainstream within the Sikh community, despite various efforts by Pakistan or India to make it appear so This such a biased piece of commentary. I will just point the same and choose to ignore it. 3. Let me summarize what we have established and agreed as per source. the movement reached the peak in 1980s. the movement petered out in 1990s. India states that there is no resurgence. canada claims that it will not allow a resurgence We cannot claim out of the blue that the movement is active. Yes there are sympathisers active. Does it infer a resurgence of the movement. NO. We already agreed above to add the statement that khalistan extremists are being arrested in early 2018. It obviously infers that these supporters still exist and that is all is needed to infer in the lead. SOME PEOPLE never stopped supporting Khalistan separatist movement. Did it stopped the authors and media to claim that the movement petered out in 1990s. NO. Same fringe still support it so? Can it be claimed a resurgence? Gurudwara in Canada prevented indian officials from entering into the gurudwara., blaming them of causing enemeity among sikhs.  This is not even related to khalistan movement. does not mean a resurgence. India gave a list of terrorist to canada and uk to take action. It has happened in past as well. Nobody claimed any resurgence. Fairly expected. The khalistani supporters allege there is a resurgence. And broadcast the same over FM radio. Obviously they will allege. Clearly Not a reliable source. See wp:primary and understand that Radio advertisements are not considered as a reliable source for Controversial edits. Annual protest on Blue star anniversary turned violent. The protest are annual movement and whether or not it became violent is trivial. As far as resurgence is concerned. Whatever is presented above is a collection of wishful thinking, WP:FUTURE anticipation, etc  none are a solid justification. None of the above sources support a resurgence. The word must be deleted asap. As pure original research. DBigXray 18:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC) By Elephanthunter 1. Annual pro-Khalistan protests where the Indian flag is sometimes "torched" and where police prepare for volatility seem relevant and appropriate for the lead. 2. Alright, we've each made our case for and against the use of the word "fringe". Maybe this would be something best left to the moderator to review our arguments and decide? 3. Please understand that I am trying to meet you halfway on an alternative to "resurgence" that communicates the state of the Khalistan movement. Despite the articles I've cited that claim there is a literal resurgence. There are protests across multiple countries, police crackdowns, accusations being thrown between India and Pakistan, terrorist warnings from India, and yes, news of resurgence/uprising/what have you.. All in 2018. Khalistan has even been brought up at G-20. I believe "active" is a bit soft of a term, but could be fair. @Robert McClenon: Since we can't even agree whether the movement is active, at this point the process of debating directly is unlikely to move us forward. I sincerely apologize for replying directly to DBigXray. We might still need your help. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC) References By DBigXray Point 3. We are not here to negotiate a bargain on choosing an acceptable form of original research. Personal beliefs and opinions are WP:OR and must never be added in to wiki page article as per policy. I have already replied above why the sources repeated above does not support this controversial claim that the movement is active. --DBigXray 03:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC) By Elephanthunter 3. List of recent news about this group: (2018) Khalistan protests across multiple countries (2018) Police crackdowns on Khalistan protestors (2018) India accuses Pakistan of "extending support" to the secessionist movement of Khalistan (2018) India sends out warning about about Khalistan terrorists (2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging (2017) India and Canada discussing growing Khalistan movement at G-20 It is active. There is nothing you can do to change fact. I suggest you take a more reasonable stance. If you have a viewpoint that contradicts the evidence above, present your sources. Maybe both positions can be mentioned. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC) References by DbigXray 3. Writing the sources n number of times in every comment with same reason does not make it a reliable source that can support this original research. I would have supported the content had there been even one solid reference. But all you keep presenting are news coverage of annual events and fairly expected biased sources. --DBigXray 19:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC) by Elephanthunter 3. I'm under no obligation to produce new sources. You have thus far produced no evidence to support your conclusion that those media outlets are unreliable. And in the course of our conversation you have literally asked me to not use news sources from the entire country of Pakistan. News sources from India only appear acceptable when they support your position. I don't think you entered into this conversation with reasonable expectations. -Elephanthunter (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC) by DBigXray 3.Please read WP:BURDEN carefully to understand what is expected from you here. It should help to answer most of the above questions. Regarding the biased pakistani sources on khalistan. I have explained quite clearly above why they have a conflict of interest and why they are unreliable here for a controversial article. That too in order to support a dubious original research claim. --DBigX<span style="color:ray 19:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) by Elephanthunter 3. So you're saying any journalist (even one writing for a well-established publication) from a country that's speculatively involved has conflict of interest. I'll argue, if that's the case, an anonymous editor from a country that is certainly involved definitely has WP:COI. I mean, there's an argument to be made here. India's censor board banned "Toofan Singh", which portrays this movement in a positive light. What else do they censor? Let's quote Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh: "Freedom of speech was enshrined in the Indian Constitution but separatists and hardliners and those propagating violence had lost any such right as they were rejected outright by the people of Punjab" His crackdown is pretty widespread. The Hindustan Times explains, "Police teams also conducted raids to nab more 'Punjab-based Khalistani activists', who allegedly assisted in spreading SFJ’s campaign whose full title is ‘Punjab Independence Referendum 2020’. Raids are being conducted in Haryana and J&K too." Maybe you could have declared during the COI step: "I live in India, where the government actively seeks out and arrests people who promote the opposing viewpoint." Now. News outlets I have cited. Pakistani sources tagged: DailyO The Wire (Scroll.in) Hindustan Times Daily Pakistan - Pakistani India Today The Times of India Indian Express National Post The Hindu Care to address the rest? --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC) by DBigXray We are not here to discuss what WP:BIASED Websites like "sikhsforjustice" think and say about something. 3. The only source worthy of discussion that you produced in response of your WP:BURDEN are news articles related to annual protests and steps taken by Indian, UK and Canada government against the Khalistani terrorists. You are making an arguement that all these tantamounts to a Resurgence ? No it does not mean a resurgence when we have credible sources stating clearly that there is no resurgence. Stating that this is a resurgence of the movement is nothing but WP:SYNTH in one of its purest form. Stay on the topic. I have pointed in my comment above the problem with each of the source that you have presented for this original research. If you have something in response to my specific comment. let me know. Based on my understanding of the above, I have said all I had to say about the sources so far. --DBigXray 15:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC) by Elephanthunter Apparently you are not interested in completing dispute resolution, since you began editing the very section of the lede we are disputing. And broadly claiming that 9+ articles are biased or original research does not make it so. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC) by DBigXray Please see my reply above again. Kindly do not mis-quote me. Robert McClenon Kindly intervene. I have already made my arguements above on why these sources are useless for the controversial claim on Resurgence. The other party is arguing in circles without adding any new information or source to support the claim of "Resurgence". --DBigXray 18:46, 4 July 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.

Talk:Flag of_Australia#Australian_flag_at_war

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Aussieflagfan on 05:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Flag of Australia#Australian flag at war (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Aussieflagfan (talk · contribs) HiLo48 (talk · contribs) Gnangarra (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the "Australian flag at war" section of the Flag of Australia article how many images if any would it be permissible to have with respect to the issue of giving the subject undue weight? Have you tried to resolve this previously? We've argued it around on the talk page. How do you think we can help? It's a controversial issue in Australia in light of the Australian flag debate. There was even a heated debate in the Australian parliament about the subject of the Australian flag at war back in 1994. Perhaps it might be useful for some impartial foreigner editor with nothing at stake here to give an opinion with regards to the matter? Summary of dispute by HiLo48 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no idea why this is here. There is a seemingly unfinished discussion on the article's talk page. I would encourage others to join it. More minds are needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gnangarra Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Too soon: 5 discussions on multiple issues about the article started on the talk page in the last 6 days - 28th June, these were triggered by the editor making edits with significant issues since the 27th June. My involvement in the discussions stems from warning the user about ownership issues with comments being made. As no discussion has sufficient time to reach a consensus its way too soon to be considering other forums. Gnangarra 05:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC) After a recent declaration of COI by Aussieflagfan,diff its clear that the user isnt here to write neutral content but to further an external political agenda. Gnangarra 14:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC) Talk:Flag of_Australia#Australian_flag_at_war discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Olio (app)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by DoubleGrazing on 14:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Olio (app) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview ((Multiple locations of dispute: Talk:Olio_(app) / User_talk:Jytdog#Reverting_my_edit_on_food_waste? / User_talk:DoubleGrazing#Inappropriate )) -- I recently saw a short video on the BBC News website about a food-sharing app called Olio, and came here on Wikipedia to find out more, only to discover that no article existed (only redlink), so decided to create one. It was subsequently pointed out that more references were needed, added a number of citations from mainstream media including the BBC and national newspapers. Soon after, user Jytdog reverted a number of my edits, accusing me of being a spammer, having a conflict of interest, and/or being a 'fan' of the company to which the article relates. I don't know what 'spamming' means in this context, but all I've done is create the article, and later on add the citations, and then add 'see also' links from two articles (Food waste and Food bank) to the new article. I am not associated with the company in any way whatsoever. I don't know how I can prove that, given that it is difficult to prove a negative, but I don't see why I should have to prove anything - surely the onus is on the accuser to show evidence to support their accusations, rather than on the accused to prove their innocence? Nor am I a 'fan'; in fact, I have never as much as used the Olio app, nor do I know anyone who does. I merely felt, based on the BBC video, that the app was interesting and noteworthy enough to warrant an article. Just to be clear, I have nothing against having my editing scrutinised, critiqued, amended, etc., and I welcome feedback as to how my work could be approved. I do not, however, think it is necessary to do that in such an aggressive and accusatory manner as has been done here, which is hardly conducive to a positive community atmosphere, let alone to encouraging new editors to make a contribution. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing the matter with the other user, including asking for evidence to support what I am being accused of. Requesting WO:3 third opinion, but that was apparently not the correct procedure here (my bad!). How do you think we can help? -- Objective and dispassionate third party opinion on the contents of the article in question (as it was, vs. as it now stands). -- Feedback (to me) on where I may have got things wrong, so that I can avoid such mistakes in the future. -- Advice (to Jytdog) on how to provide more constructive criticism. -- Something to prevent further defamatory accusations being made against my name, without any supporting evidence. Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This board is for content, like 3O is. This is not ripe for DR. For some reason this person will not discuss the content. Here is the content I removed. This person has not stated anywhere - but most importantly, not at the talk page - why that content should be retained. So we have not even started discussing the content. They have become upset because I said that the removed content is promotional, and promotional content is added by fans or people with a COI. They are stuck on their upsetness over that. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Talk:Olio (app) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of_WWE_personnel#I_just_moved_205_Live,_but_I_hope_we're_all_happy_:)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 32.213.92.177 on 03:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of WWE personnel#I just moved 205 Live (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) But I hope we're all happy :) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Galatz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Members and anonymous alike have been trying to make 205 Live have it's own section on the roster. While not listed on WWE.com as it's own brand (instead it's mixed with RAW), they have their own General Manager (Drake Maverick), exclusive signings (Hideo Itami, Buddy Murphy, Lio Rush. The latter two never appeared on RAW), their own title (the Cruiserweight title) and rumored a new one coming. They have a unique commentary team. Most importantly, each week it is called a brand on the TV show. Including in the Youtube link WWE, who own 205 Live, uploaded themselves. Any change is reverted due to two users not agreeing even when proof is offered. They do not like it, so they refuse to accept it, which isn't what wikipedia is about. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We keep trying to use talk to discuss it but they ignore our points and stamp their feet. How do you think we can help? Either step in and overrule one side or prevent them from reverting future edits as HHH Pedigree and Galatz will not listen to the majority. Summary of dispute by Galatz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:List of_WWE_personnel#I_just_moved_205_Live,_but_I_hope_we're_all_happy_:) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Otto ter Haar on 21:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#BOAC Flight 777 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Otto ter Haar (talk · contribs) The Banner (talk · contribs) Robotje (talk · contribs) MilborneOne (talk · contribs) Flyingd (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added two items two the list of "Near misses" in the article and moved an item about an attempted shootdown to near misses. User The Banner reverted all three edits in one move with summary motivation. There has been discussion before about the mentioning of these incidents as part of another item (BOAC). I asked explanation from The Banner on the talk page but he ignores it. I have bad experiences with him. He is an edit warrior who abuses Wikipedia as a "battleground". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I first tried to solve this on the Talk page, but that is ignored. How do you think we can help? Remind The Banner of the 3RR-rule. It is much stricter used here than at the Dutch wiki. Perhaps this article should become 1RR. Further I would like to see that MilborneOne, Flyingd and Robotje give their opinion. I have noticed all involved users at their talkpage. Summary of dispute by The Banner Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It should be good when you reminded Otto ter Haar about the principle called "consensus". In fact, he ignores the discussion at Talk:List of airliner shootdown incidents#BOAC Flight 777 by again mentioning previous attacks on Flight 777, despite consensus that the info is irrelevant. The article is named List of airliner shootdown incidents for a reason, it should not be made into a List of airliner shootdown incidents and lucky escapes, as Otto and his friend Flyingd want. The Banner talk 22:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) This is in fact POV-pushing and misusing this mediation system. Otto did not make a serious attempt to solve the dispute by discussion as the talkpage shows.The Banner talk 22:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC) I am sincerely displeased by the fact that Otto ter Haar is throwing in personal attacks to push his POV and blemish me. The Banner talk 08:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Robotje Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MilborneOne Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This was discussed a few weeks ago and the consensus was to not include incidents where the aircraft were not really shotdown (such as near misses). A new user to the article disagrees with the consensus reached but as this was only raised yesterday its hardly time for any dispute resolution. Not really a dispute at this stage, suggest this is closed and discussion continues on the talk page. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Flyingd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:List of_airliner_shootdown_incidents#BOAC_Flight_777 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ofer Bergman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Ebeloo on 10:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ofer Bergman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ebeloo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It has been claimed that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", which is false, & I would like to have the remark removed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I had raised the question on the page's talk page but had received no reply or explanation for the comment. How do you think we can help? Tell me how I can remove the comment or help me find whoever had posted it so that I can discuss it directly with him/her (in the most civil matter, of course :)) Talk:Ofer Bergman discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Lindelof_hypothesis

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by AlexanderTrampton on 11:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Lindelöf hypothesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved AlexanderTrampton (talk · contribs) BillCherowitzo (talk · contribs) Sapphorain (talk · contribs) 2a02:586:3909:b400:f00f:8c70:e730:19c8 (talk · contribs) 94.71.132.212 (talk · contribs) 131.111.184.3 (talk · contribs) 131.111.185.9 (talk · contribs) 31.221.56.70 (talk · contribs) 109.176.95.172 (talk · contribs) 132.205.229.213 (talk · contribs) Jay7yagi (talk · contribs) CBM (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A dispute has arisen over whether to include a section on Professor Athanassiois Fokas's claim to have proved the Lindelof hypothesis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have encouraged discussion on the main issues but largely unsuccessfully, and I have successfully applied for protection. I have posted a polished version of the proposed section on the talk page for discussion. How do you think we can help? By explaining to contributors the relevance of Wikipedia policies on reliability, verifiability, and sufficient noteworthiness to merit mention; by explaining the relative unimportance of interpretation, alleged private sources, and predictions; and by encouraging the reaching of conclusions based on a straightforward and honest discussion of what the important facts and premises are and of what ideas and conclusions can justifiably be held to follow from them. Summary of dispute by BillCherowitzo Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sapphorain Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2a02:586:3909:b400:f00f:8c70:e730:19c8 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 94.71.132.212 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 131.111.184.3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 131.111.185.9 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 31.221.56.70 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 109.176.95.172 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 132.205.229.213 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jay7yagi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CBM Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Lindelof hypothesis discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. While the filing party has commented on this case to some of the editors, they have not notified the other editors of this filing. This doesn't seem to be a case where this noticeboard is likely to be useful. The filing party states, reasonably, that they would like someone to explain Wikipedia policies and guidelines to participants, but that isn't the purpose of this noticeboard. Also, when ten editors, including six unregistered editors (since two of them are the same), are identified, moderated discussion may not be feasible. The filing party might consider (as already suggested) requesting input from WT:WikiProject Mathematics, where an experienced editor may be able to provide the requested reminder of Wikipedia policies. Since the page has been protected, discuss on the article talk page. Report personal attacks or other disruptive discussion at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Volunteer question - Is this a one-against-many dispute? If the multiple registered editors (even discounting the unregistered editors) are saying that the claimed proof should not be mentioned, then the filing party should consider whether maybe they have a reason for excluding the claimed proof. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC) I am not one of the named parties nor a DRN volunteer, but: yes, it is a one-versus-many dispute, and the original filer seems to have retired after finding a firm consensus against their edits. --2601:142:3:F83A:3C4A:201A:4BC1:100E (talk) 14:03, 11 July 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.

Talk:Identity Evropa#Identitarian_vs_Neo-Nazi

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion
	archive = Talk:Identity Evropa/Archive %(counter)d	counter = 1	maxarchivesize = 150K	minthreadstoarchive = 1	minthreadsleft = 0" Which means that discussions without comments for 14 days would be archived, and that if no discussion occurs for two weeks, everything currently on the page gets buried the archive. Apparently this user tried to "compromise" with me by setting this to 30 days instead. This seems like it would discourage any consensus discussion for users other than Beyond My Ken or Grayfell, since they tend to quickly jump on new talk topics and claim consensus before there is any chance for new discussions to flesh themselves out. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion was utilized by myself and other users who indicated content issues on this page. How do you think we can help? Acknowledgement of content issues within this page and a constructive conversation for how to manage this page in accordance to Wikipedia Policy. Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken Extended comment. Only the conclusion is important, which is that BMK declines to participate, and participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC) SPLC (Note that Eli Mosely changed his name from "Eli Kline", as a tribute to British Fascist Oswald Mosely): On March 4, 2017 [IE leader Eli Mosely] attended a Philadelphia pro-Trump rally and, in a report he later wrote for the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer , described the counter-protesters as “hooked-nose Philadelphians” and held special animus for one “filthy Jewess” in the crowd. He took the tension between the two factions as a sign that “we have moved into a new era in the Nazification of America. Normie Trump supporters are becoming racially aware and Jew wise” — a positive development, in his opinion. Josh Damiago, borther of Nathan Damiago, founder of IE: In August, Nathan Damiago, and other members of Identity Evropa traveled to Charlottesville, purportedly to protest the removal of a statute of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The demands quickly grew to include more than the protection of a statue. On the night before the rally, Identity Evropa members joined a group of several hundred mostly young men who carried torches through the campus of the University of Virginia and chanted, "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil," a Nazi-era slogan. The Tab: "Meet the neo-Nazi coming to put up white pride posters on your campus" - "Neo-Nazis are trying to organize a national movement called Identity Evropa to bring their white supremacist message to your college campus." Summary: Despite their careful avoidance of describing themselves as "Neo-Nazi", and of using typical neo-Nazi symbols, the stated views of Identity Evropa nonetheless clearly and unambiguously show that they are, indeed, neo-Nazis. The description in the article is supported by four sources, which override the organization's public relations attempt to distance itself from Fascism and Nazism. Wikipedia articles are not driven by the self-descriptions of people and organizations, they are driven by the descriptions of reliable third-party sources, nor is our article content determined by the personal points-of-view of editors. The fact that User:MichiganWoodShop was blocked as a suspected sock puppet of the indefinitly blocked, and de facto banned, User:PerfectlyIrrational, is irrelevant here. Although the edits of banned and de facto banned editors can be removed on sight, this particular issue has already been the subject of discussion involving established editors on the article talk page, so it is not being discovered ex nihilo. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Finally, there is a clear consensus on Talk:Identity Evropa for describing that organization as "neo-Nazi". Agreement to that has been voiced by myself, User:Grayfell, User:Dr. Fleischman and User:Dlthewave. Only the complainant and User:Axumtoted -- a new editor who appeared out of nowhere to make a Semi-Protected Edit Request, made edits only to Talk:Identity Evropa in support of that request, and then disappeared when their request was definitively turned down, and therefore should be discounted as a probable sock of some other editor, or at least as a POV SPA -- have written in favor of it. Dispute resolution should not be a substitute for talk-page consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Fixing ping: User:DrFleischman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Final note: This case should not be accepted, as there is absolutely no lack of consensus on the article talk page, sothere is, in fact, no "dispute" per se, simply a lone aggrieved editor who is attempting to get by filing a DR case what they could not get by consensus discussion. This backdoor attempt to undermine normal Wikipedia procedures is contemptible and in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. As such, I refuse to participate any further, and I urge the other editors listed as parties to refuse to participate as well, and instead continue to discuss this issue at the only place that counts, the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grayfell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Identity Evropa#Identitarian_vs_Neo-Nazi discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - There are two additional editors who have taken part in recent discussions who should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC) I don't understand procedures. Is discussion on this page being requested? Roger (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Yes, discussion here is being requested, but discussion on this page should be moderated discussion. Please keep discussions to a minimum before a volunteer has opened a case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Keep discussion to a minimum until this case is opened by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC) I was pinged by Beyond My Ken and would be interested in participating. –dlthewave ☎ 03:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC) To clarify, I would like to be considered as an involved party if the case is accepted, but after looking through the latest talk page discussion I agree with Beyond My Ken's assessment that there is no actual dispute or lack of consensus. An RfC would be a better approach. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC) This is only a dispute because "Neo-Nazi" is a pejorative term with no agree-upon meaning. I've never seen anyone call himself a Neo-Nazi, except maybe as a joke. I don't see how the term helps us understand the views of Identity Evropa. It would be much better to describe the group's radical views, and let the reader form his own opinion. By way of analogy, suppose the article about Donald Trump started by calling him a Nazi. It is true that you can find sources in respectable publications calling him a Nazi. But still, it is just a partisan pejorative, and no one would trust an encyclopedia article that started with a partisan pejorative. Likewise, no one is going to trust an article on Identity Evropa that starts off with meaningless name-calling from adverse political groups. Roger (talk) 04:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC) I don't appreciate being accused of being intellectually dishonest or acting in bad faith merely for posting a couple of passing comments in defense of our core neutrality and verifiability policies. This is really a matter of simply reflecting what the reliable sources say. I could be mistaken, but I believe the complainant wants the word "neo-Nazi" removed from article because not all reliable sources use it to describe IE. That flips our verifiability policy on its head. A number of reliable sources label it as such, and as far as I know no reliable sources say it's not neo-Nazi. The listed sources aren't particularly useful. Sure the SPLC calls it a white nationalist group; it's a little redundant from a stylistic perspective, but I take see no policy problem with saying the group is both neo-Nazi and white nationalist. The ADL is not a reliable source. The Newsweek/Yahoo source says IE is based on identitarian youth groups, but doesn't say IE is identitarian itself. (Yes, some ideologies grow out of other ideologies.) The Wired source appears to cast doubt on the group's self-identification as identitarian. ("Nathan Damigo, Identity Evropa's founder, calls himself an identitarian, but his organization also has clear roots in the Ku Klux Klan...") The last SPLC source doesn't even mention IE. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC) The sources provided by Beyond My Ken do not hold up to high enough standards to meet WP:BLP and claim these people are Neo-Nazis and run with that assertion for the entirety of the article, especially when multiple categorizations/viewpoints exist which clearly differentiate such ideologies. The Tab is a tabloid, the SLPC article referring to quotes from Eli Mosley seem to be taken before he was even announced as temporary leader of Identity Evropa, and sources cannot determine whether he was speaking on behalf of the organization, or whether the organization itself endorsed such statements to infer that the entirety of the organization is Neo-Nazi. According to WP:BLP we must be mindful that a harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. The Pacific Standard (which is another low quality source) article seems to have conflicting statements saying Nathan Damigo is not a Nazi according to his grandmother and then contains a statement by another individual who backtracked from their original accusations. It would be fair to perhaps create a section which details potential links to Nazi ideologies, similar to the Identitarian movement article — but the fact we even have to dispute a clear vandalism case is unfortunate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarossa139 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer question - Is this a One-against-many dispute, in which the other editors have a consensus from which the filing party disagrees? If so, a Request for Comments might be more likely to be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Multiple other users in the history of the talk page have contested the content of the article (including @Schlafly: and USER:Axumtoted, among others) by claiming neutrality issues and etc., Beyond My Ken and Grayfell typically attempt to shut down any further discussion on these issues by claiming supposed consensus, despite the fact they provide poor sources and ignore the key points being presented. When I tried to further discuss the content and WP:BLP issues on the talk page, accusations of me being a potential COI and SPA occurred (and failed) instead — and no content discussion of any substance ever happened. Now users created archival settings (without consensus) on the talk page to be extremely strict to further discourage discussions by those other than Grayfell and Beyond My Ken, who are constantly viewing the page and disrupting any meaningful conversation.Barbarossa139 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer comment - This appears to be a conduct dispute. If User:Barbarossa139 is correct in their presentation, there are conduct issues by User:Greyfell and User:Beyond My Ken. If Beyond My Ken is correct, then there are conduct issues by Barbararossa139. It may be difficult to find a volunteer moderator here who will handle this case. The filing party might try Requests for Mediation, but that would likely be dismissed if the other parties do not agree to mediation. A Request for Comments is probably the most effective way to establish consensus. Any editor who thinks that there is a conduct problem can report the conduct issue to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Alternatively, Arbitration Enforcement, under the American Politics case, might provide a more draconian way of dealing with conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC) The main content issue I am trying to highlight is to consider why it's appropriate to force the assertion an organization is Neo-Nazi for the entirety of the Wikipedia article based on a poor interpretation of low-quality sources using the term in a pejorative sense. If sources existed which indicate this organization has endorsed Nazism and actions of WW2-era Germany and proclaim themselves as Nazis, this would obviously be a much different discussion. But this is especially an issue because multiple sources exist which define a broader political spectrum of beliefs and ideas which categorize this group outside of the term "Neo-Nazi". For example, I could find probably 10 sources which call Donald Trump a Nazi. But does that mean his Wikipedia page should be written entirely on the premise that he's a Nazi? I would think not, otherwise it would degrade the usefulness of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic reference. Barbarossa139 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party hasn't answered the original question of whether this is a one-against-many dispute. If it is, a volunteer moderator isn't likely to "take the side" of the filing party and push the other editors into line. It also still appears that this is a conduct dispute, either by the filing party or by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: My apologies, I thought I answered this in my earlier response. Based on the comments of other editors throughout the talk page, I do not believe this is a one-against-many dispute. Other editors have articulated content issues on the page in the past. When I go back and review the talk page history, I users such as User:Schlafly, User:Ejplaysintraffic, User:Axumtoted, User:Mactire22, and others have expressed such opinions. Is there anything else I should provide to further prove this point? Also, proponents of keeping the term "Neo Nazi" insist that the organizations such as SPLC and ADL call this organization a Neo-Nazi group, but even this New York Times article states that "[T]he A.D.L. classifies it as a white supremacist group and the Southern Poverty Law Center describes it as a white nationalist group.", NOT a Neo-Nazi group. This seems like a big BLP problem if editors are taking it upon themselves to interpret sources however they please or asserting the views of low-quality sources as a majority viewpoint. Barbarossa139 (talk) 17:07, 3 July 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.

Template talk:Generalitat de Catalunya#Translating Conseller as just Minister is inaccurate and misleading

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by BallenaBlanca on 00:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:Generalitat de Catalunya#Translating Conseller as just Minister is inaccurate and misleading (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user Obi2canibe and I are the only ones participating in certain discussions. We can not reach an agreement. I want to request mediation, to be able to move forward. I think that Obi2canibe is creating problems of understanding and ambiguities because he is not clear about basic concepts. What best reflects this fact are these words of him: "Your latest game, trying to delegitimise Catalonia by changing minister to 'regional minister'" I do not understand how he can consider that adjusting the term correctly to regional ("regional minister" instead of "minister") is "delegitimizing" Catalonia (!?). The only explanation I find is that he considers that Catalonia is a country. But Catalonia is not a country, Catalonia is actually a region, an autonomous community of Spain. The Government of Spain has ministers. The governments of the regions of Spain, such as Catalonia, have counselors (regional ministers). Have you tried to resolve this previously? Obi2canibe was using personal attacks in the talk pages. I raised it in the ANI, he has been warned and I hope that from now on he respects it. What we now need is a mediation for the discussion about the content. How do you think we can help? I think it is necessary that a neutral editor judges the situation and provides their opinion. The same problem is occurring in related pages that Obi2canibe has created or edited, such as Ester Capella and others in which I have not yet edited, and several templates. Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe This is a naming dispute about what term we should use to describe members of the government of Catalonia. Should we follow policies, specifically WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGAL, and use the most common name used in English language WP:RS, or should we synthesise a name for political reasons.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Template talk:Generalitat de Catalunya#Translating Conseller as just Minister is inaccurate and misleading discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Notice has been given. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - The obvious question about whether an editor is insisting on referring to an official using a term that appears to refer to a national official is whether the party is indeed affirming the Catalonian independence movement. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much for your feedback. Excuse me, but I do not know if I'm understanding. Do you mean that the problem may be that Obi2canibe is using a biased point of view to support the Catalonian independence movement? What is the next step that must be taken? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 04:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC) Volunteer note - Well, it seems that way, although whether you call it bias depends on what part of Iberia you are from. Some Catalonians claim that Catalonia should be a country, and, if it is, it will have ministers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC) @DRN volunteers: - Is a volunteer willing either to take this case or to close this case? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Your answer has been a little confusing to me. I am approaching this issue from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and has to reflect content from verifiable sources, not the desires of certain groups. Yes some Catalonians claim that Catalonia should be a country, but this is a wish and not a reality. The political organization of Spain has not changed. See Political divisions of Spain and Autonomous communities of Spain. There was a unilateral declaration of independence, which was symbolic since it has not been accepted by Spain or the international community and was an act to try to pressure the Spanish government to negotiate over Catalan independence . Notice how the politicians themselves promoting the declaration of independence have recognized that it was not real but symbolic: "Catalonia independence declaration was symbolic, says Carme Forcadell" If at any time Catalonia achieves the independende, there will be no problem in calling them just minister and saying that Catalonia is a country. Meanwhile, it is still an autonomous community within Spain. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC) We have already reached an agreement . It is not necessary to continue with this thread. Thank you very much! --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:03, 4 July 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.

Talk:Home Army

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by François Robere on 14:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• François Robere (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Icewhiz (talk · contribs)
• GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs)
• MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs)
• Xx236 (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple issues relating to Home Army's relations with Jews: Its attitude towards Jewish refugees and partisans; its view of the Holocaust and unwillingness to interfere with it by force; the extent of help it gave Jewish fighters, in particular in the Warsaw ghetto; and other issues.

Relevant talk segments are Talk:Home Army/Archive 4#AK units hunting down groups - Talk:Home Army#Section about Adolf Pilch

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions and BRDs, and at one point an ANI on incivility.

How do you think we can help?

Moderate a discussion of all the pertinent issues, such that we can develop the article towards a stable version.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek has been topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for three months

Summary of dispute by Icewhiz

Icewhiz has been topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for three months

Summary of dispute by Icewhiz

This article passed GAR in 2008 with the section looking like this. It is now this. The article in general has several NPOV issues, and reads like a Martyrology of the Home Army, however problems are particularly glaring in the Jewish section. Per Joshua D. Zimmerman ( I'm linking a politico piece by him at it is shorter - but his published book by Cambridge University Press says the same in much greater detail - in 454 pages (historiography being in the intro).):

Understanding of the Polish Underground’s wartime record was overwhelmingly negative. Holocaust survivor testimony and scholarly studies argued that partisans of the Home Army — those clandestine forces in Nazi-occupied Poland loyal to the Polish government-in-exile — were just as dangerous to Jews as were the Nazis. And the specific cases on which these claims were made were no doubt accurate.

(Zimmerman takes a more nuanced view - he distinguishes between different locations, and between the relatively positive General Stefan Rowecki (until June 1943) and the negative General Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski (from Jun 1943 till the end of the war) - who would go on to integrate the anti-semitic NSZ and Uderzeniowe Bataliony Kadrowe into the AK).

Does our article reflect this body of Holocaust scholarship? No. It does reflect a few very laudatory ethno-nationalist writers (who surely should be reflected per their appropriate weight - but should not be a singularity) - which it also managed to misrepresent or cherry-pick. Oddly, the article tries to emphasize Jewish membership in the AK when actual RS say this was a very minute phenomena (a few hundred per Zimmerman) - and outside of very specific locales (e.g. Warsaw after the ghetto uprising) - the Jewish members hid their Jewish identity from the AK (these were Jews surviving on the Aryan side - passing off as Poles).

There are many-many problems (as might be seen in the talk page and article history) - attempts to rectify this have been challenged, and consensus does not seem to emerge.

Particularly appalling is the recognition section - which is a gross misrepresentation of the Righteous awards. The Righteous designation is an individual designation - handed out to people who acted against the normal norms of their society. Yad Vashem did not impute recognition to the AK - which its researchers view as an organization imbued with antisemitism with units who engaged in wholesale killing of Jews - but rather recognized individuals who defied the norms in the AK. Mordecai Paldiel was the head (1084-2007) of the Righteous department handing out these awards (as well as being a historian), this is what he has to say on the AK:

In fact, many factions in the underground washed their hands of the Jews, with some, such as the NSZ, committed themselves to hunting down Jews on the run, while at the same time resisting the Nazi occupiers. Those few Jews who were admitted into the Home Army were able to do this mostly by successfully hiding their Jewish identity.

or similar words in this book by Mordecai Paldiel.

Per Yad Vashem there are 11 Righteous who were Nazi party members, we would not add a recognition section to the Nazi Party article based on this. (This is an extreme example - but a relevant one - the way the "AK recognition" is sourced is OR (off a list of name) - I've actually presented a stronger source for the clearly inappropriate (OR and misrepresentation) hypothetical).

I dug deeper into the Righteous issue as an illustrative example, but there are several other problems: misrepresentation of AK's Jewish membership (a few hundred Jews, the vast majority of which hid their Jewish identity and passed off as Poles), omission of the truce and weapon supply arrangements by AK units with the Nazis in Nowogródek and Wilno (condoned by the district commands, high command issued a perfunctory order to cease - but continued using the units), omission of the antisemitic character of much of the AK, inclusion of Zegota (which wasn't part of the AK, and the underground actually skimmed significant Jewish funds sent to Zegota), overemphasis of minor alliances with Jewish groups (very late in Warsaw - where on the Aryan side life continued as normal, and some local arrangements in Western Ukraine (where the Polish strategic situation was dire), the poorly sourced and misrepresented "punished perpetrators of antisemitic violence, sentencing them to death" and apologetics around szmalcowniks, and finally the omission of the widespread hunts and massacres of Jews by some AK units (particularly the part of the NSZ that joined the AK, but also others).

Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC) modified for clarity + conclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

For the most part this is a 2 (FR, IW) vs. 2+ (VM, GCB, other named editors were less active but either neutral or on this "side") situation. GCB has been TBANNED since this started (separate page, but scope relevant to this one). So no it is not 1 in many.Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBella

GizzyCatBella has been topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII indefinitely .

Summary of dispute by MyMoloboaccount

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

Summary of dispute by Xx236

I'm reading the book by Zimmermann. In my opinion some editors select details from a 600 pages book, which is close to Wikipedia:Cherrypicking.

life continued as normal - I hope I misunderstand. Mass executions and deportations weren't normal. Quite many ethnic Poles believed that the situation of isoleted and economically opressed Jews 1939-1941 was better than the one of murdered and imprisoned etnic Poles.

Germans created a hierarchy of ethnicities in occupied Poland in which Poles were below anyone except the Jews and Roma. So the life of Poles was normal for the Jews but pathetic existence for everyone other. We don't describe life during the Holocaust in the USA from Warsaw ghetto POV, why do you describe occupied Poland from such POV?

Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

From Żegota: Żegota was the brainchild of Henryk Woliński of the Home Army (AK).

Poor ccoperation with Delegatura, much better with Woliński of the AK .

Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Piotrus

My two cents (as an editor who got HA to a GA a decade ago). This old GA is now somewhat unstable, with some users concerned that it doesn't sufficiently stress some anti-semitic attitude/actions on the part of the Home Army, others concerned this is WP:UNDUE, and some preferring to erase anything that would make HA (generally considered heroes in Poland) look bad. It's the usual case of extremism fostering extremism on the other side, and a spill off from recent deterioration of Polish-Israel relations and an influx of some new and highly opinionated editors to this area. This and related article desperately need an influx of neutral moderators, through what we will probably get is a banhammer nuke level cleanup from an ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:Home Army discussion

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

Volunteer note: I am neither opening this case for discussion nor "taking" this case. This is a reminder to the filing party that he must notify all the other listed participants in the dispute by leaving a message on their individual user talk pages. A general notice on the article talk page will not suffice and this filing will be closed as abandoned if all such notices have not been given by 17:00 UTC on June 25, 2018. The following code may be placed in an appropriately-titled section on the user talk pages to give that notice {{subst:drn-notice|Home Army}} Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Notices given, thank you. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Volunteer question - Is this a one-against-many dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The general dynamic in the topic area falls under "the page has been hijacked by a group pushing a particular point of view", although there is more than one editor on the minority side. In terms of evidence there have been several RfC, RSN and AFD discussion (not limited to this article, but on the same issues and with the same participants), most of which supported the minority views. One article is now under source restrictions due to abuses of WP:RS , and one editor of the majority group has been topic banned . François Robere (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@DRN volunteers: - Is a volunteer available either to handle a moderated rewrite of the article or to take some other action? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this request, seeing as most of the major participants are now topic-banned from the subject. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the request is still valid, since there are still some issues of contention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss if you do. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer note I'd be willing to moderate discussion and/or edit (as suggested above). Let me know what route you'd like to take. Snowycats (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Shane Bieber

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 96.242.88.25 on 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Shane Bieber (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yankees10 (talk · contribs) 96.242.88.25 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I posted a comment that was reverted twice without any explanation. Comment was not an attack or vandalism, but a theory I was proposing. It's clear that the person does not agree with the comment, let alone the edit I made associated with it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I did not undo the revert on the page itself, but am surprised that this person reverted again even after I asked for an explanation on his/her talkpage. user's talkpage shows he hasn't responded to comments asking for him/her to explain any previous the automatic reverts he made. I am only posting this to stop a potential edit war in it's tracks. How do you think we can help? Allow comment to stand. Review edits made to the article. Advise editor to respect newcomers. Summary of dispute by Yankees10 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 96.242.88.25 After reposting the comment there was a third party response. As a result it is highly unlikely it will be reverted again. Talk:Shane Bieber discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Rejecting - the edit by 96.242.88.25 is a clear violation of the policy on biographies of living people and the policy against original research. As for the reversions on the talk page: That was hasty of Yankees10; they may have assumed vandalism or trolling, but vandals and trolls don't usually WP:BRD. However, if 96.242.88.25 stays within policy (neutral point of view, original research, verifiability, bios of living people), then it's unlikely they'll experience something like this again. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 15 July 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.

Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides#Removal of hyphens

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kelisi on 20:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides#Removal of hyphens (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kelisi (talk · contribs) Reidgreg (talk · contribs) Yoninah (talk · contribs) ScrapIronIV (talk · contribs) Bearcat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is disagreement over whether phrases such as "male sex worker" or "transgender sex worker" should include a hyphen between the last two words. There is a question of ambiguity if it is left out. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have stated exhaustively on the linked Talk page why I believe that hyphens should not be included in said phrases. I have consulted MOS, and it seems to support my position, but another user thinks otherwise. How do you think we can help? Perhaps you have volunteers who are well versed in English writing who can determine whether there is any ambiguity to be avoided, and whether there is any justification for writing said phrases with a hyphen. Summary of dispute by Reidgreg Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The reasons for the repeated removal of these hyphens are spelling, grammar, and following sources. No specific guideline was cited. The reasons for retaining the hyphens are style and clarity. An ArbCom statement, MOS guideline, Reference Desk discussion and grammar articles were cited. There has been little or no response to this information. It was said the hyphens aren't "Proper English" but object–verbal noun compounds like "sex worker" can be hyphenated or not as a matter of style. A Language RD discussion confirms this. Nothing relevant was found in the MOS. There was disagreement to the nature of MOS: does it explicitly state everything permissible in articles? Assuming this is not the case, then either style is acceptable. MOS:STYLERET notes ArbCom stated "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Assuming this is a matter of style, then the grammar, spelling, and source-following arguments do not apply, leaving no reason for removing the hyphens. It was claimed that "sex-worker" isn't proper spelling and that "no dictionary" uses a hyphen, but hyphens are punctuation and have no bearing on spelling. It was noted that sources do not hyphenate "sex-worker", but Wikipedia does not follow styles used in sources (some exceptions). It was stated that the unhyphenated version "simply cannot be misunderstood" (following an ironically lengthy grammatical analysis). However, others have noted a clarity issue when modifiers are piled on as with "homeless transgender sex worker", that "transgender" might otherwise be associated with "sex". A hyphen visibly draws "sex-worker" together and associates the words as a unit, making the phrase easier to read and understand. I would hope that a neutral party, who does not have to be a grammar expert, could check the links above and bring about a policy-based consensus. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Yoninah Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ScrapIronIV Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bearcat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't have any strong opinion either way about this, and really didn't participate in the debate except to clarify a single point. All I said is that the question of whether McArthur's sources hyphenate "sex worker" or not is irrelevant to the matter of whether we should hyphenate it or not — if we're not literally quoting a source's words verbatim in a directly attributed quote nested inside quotation marks, then we're not otherwise locked into replicating that source's house style or its spelling errors or whatever else in our own passages of original non-quoted writing. (For instance, our article about a business executive is not required to capitalize his job title, in defiance of our own manual of style, just because the article happens to be citing sources that do capitalize it.) I didn't express any opinion either way about whether we should hyphenate it or not — all I did was point out that the "but the sources aren't hyphenating it" line of argument was irrelevant, because it wasn't direct quotes that were being talked about, and that the discussion needed to be kept strictly on the question of whether our writing style warranted it or not. I expressed no opinion either way about whether a hyphen was necessary or not, so I'm not sure why I'm being summoned to participate in dispute resolution about it. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC) Talk:2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides#Removal of hyphens discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment: These kinds of binary disputes (hyphen/no hyphen) are usually very difficult to mediate. A consensus would require one of the parties to undig their heels and give in to the other. Since a mediator won't side with one party over another , I don't believe that much will be gained through mediation. It was asked that a neutral party bring about a policy-based consensus. My recommendation is that the consensus version is whatever is currently there, and to move on to other things. An RfC will be more appropriate, if this proves to be intractable. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC) What is currently in the article is there because other editors wouldn't follow WP:BRD including multiple reverts by an editor with the rollback user right. What you're suggesting would be reasonable if BRD were followed, but in this case it amounts to "whoever reverts last wins" which would encourage edit warring and 3RR violations. (As it was, the disruptiveness of this caused the article to be protected and delayed its appearance on the main page for DYK.) I hate to escalate such a WP:LAME style-based dispute. While I try to AGF and would hope that consensus could be reached, perhaps that is unrealistic. Could I ask that it be opened if only to give the anti-hyphen side another opportunity to respond to the ArbCom, MOS guideline, and grammar articles I linked? Then either the discussion advances or I can pursue this as a failure to discuss. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved editor: It's uncommon to hyphenate professions: "gold miner", "corporate lawyer", "social worker". When profession names or professional titles are joined, it's usually as a compound word: silversmith, helmsman, midwife. Per Strunk, "the steady evolution of the language seems to favor union: 'wild life' -> 'wild-life' -> 'wildlife'." Unless it can be shown that "sexworker" is a common form, I suggest you stick to the space-separated form and avoid a hyphen. If language evolves to use a hyphen here, it will do so on its own. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 14 July 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.

Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Redirects

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by The Vintage Feminist on 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved The Vintage Feminist (talk · contribs) EddieHugh (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute over whether Healthier IN the EU and Scientists for EU should both be included in the template under the "Calls for second vote" - the argument against being they both "land" at Mike Galsworthy#Scientists for EU and Healthier IN the EU contradicting advice given at WP:NAV "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template". Also there is a dispute as to whether Britain for Europe should be included as a redirect to Opposition to Brexit in the United Kingdom#Britain for Europe (Britain for Europe was previously an article in its own right but was deleted after an AfD WP:Articles for deletion/Britain for Europe, it was then a redirect to Anne Weyman (vice-chair of Britain for Europe)). Have you tried to resolve this previously? The matter has been discussed extensively on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Perhaps volunteers can weigh up the arguments on both sides and judge how the template compares with regard to standard practice on Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by EddieHugh Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United Kingdom in the European Union#Redirects discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Russians in_Latvia#Ushakov's_fine

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Alaexis on 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Russians in Latvia#Ushakov's fine (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alaexis (talk · contribs) Turaids (talk · contribs) Philaweb (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The question is whether the fact that the mayor of Riga was fined for using the Russian language on the municipality's Facebook page should be included in the article on Russians in Latvia (its Language section). Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing on the talk page and proposing new wording that took into account parts of the story raised by other users (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russians_in_Latvia&diff=849712574&oldid=849646778) How do you think we can help? Review the notability of the case and whether its removal constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Suggest how to include all the relevant perspectives in a concise and non-biased way. Summary of dispute by Turaids Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Philaweb Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Russians in_Latvia#Ushakov's_fine discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Korean Jagiya

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Hotwiki on 08:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute My Korean Jagiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Hotwiki (talk · contribs) Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Spacecowboy420 keeps removing content from the cast section,which makes it very incomplete. He claims that not every character should be mentioned when I already argued that the cast list is already incomplete. He has not seen the show to claim who's not notable enough in the said show. Also claimed that "its a minor show" yet its a primetime show in a major broadcast network in the Philippines. Then he tagged the article for being a "fan site" and the article is not neutral - which in my opinion are both false. The article is so small and tone is neutral. I've already brought this up to Edit Warring and Third Opinion and got no response in resolving this. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page, edit summary, edit warring page, third opinion page How do you think we can help? Someone needs to step in. Summary of dispute by Spacecowboy420 We don't need two discussions on this. It takes as long as it takes, I'm guessing that spamming this board with multiple requests won't make anything happen quicker. My Korean Jagiya discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ernst Rohm#Decorations and awards

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Troy von Tempest on 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Ernst Rohm (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs) Batternut (talk · contribs) Kierzek (talk · contribs) Anachronist (talk · contribs) Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have been adding some awards and decorations with a link to an existing wiki article on those particular awards and decorations. One editor in particular has deleted that new added content, stating that the award or decoration is now classed as "trivial" and is not to be added to the article or linked to another existing wiki article. As this has happened to me on a number of pages, I have asked how am I to know what is now considered "trivial" or not, even though it has it's own stand-alone page. I have repeatedly asked for clear guidelines on what is now not allowed to be added and what stand-alone articles are allowed to be linked, but have not received an answer. I asked in light of not being told what is now apparently not allowed to be linked and what is, do I just keep adding the content on different articles and wait and see if it's deleted or not, and whether I get yet another aggressive warning about adding these unlisted and unknown "trivial" awards. I also asked what is the point of having a stand-alone article if you are never allowed to refer to it, but again, received no answer. What do I do here, do I just stop linking stand-alone articles because apparently they are now considered by two editors to be trivial or menial? Some editors have said if an article exists elsewhere, I should be allowed to provide a link to that article. Yet one editor has said I am not allowed to provide a link to that article. As he will not provide a list of now unacceptable wiki articles that can be linked, do I just keep adding and see what happens or do I just,as I've been warned aggressively, to stop adding content that is linked to an existing stand-alone article. I am genuinely seeking clear and unambiguous guidelines or rules here, not something that I am supposed to be a mind reader to understand. Thank youTroy von Tempest (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have asked repeatedly on the talk page and on my own talk page but have not received an answer that clearly states what is now unallowable and what is allowable, in reference to linking to stand-alone articles. I've asked what is the point of having a stand-alone article if nobody is allowed to link to it and again, have no reply How do you think we can help? If an article already exists in wiki as a stand-alone page, I should be able to provide a link to it. If the stand-alone article isn't allowed to be linked or referred to, what function does it serve if you can't refer to it? If one editor claims an award is now "trivial" after I've linked it to a stand-alone article, why is a list of all "trivial" awards be provided so I do not incur the wrath of the editor for not knowing in advance what articles are now not permitted to be linked? Summary of dispute by Batternut Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I was made aware of the dispute at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Links to Wiki pages. The discussion at the article talk page seemed productive, and the "editorial judgment" explanation by Beyond My Ken seemed reasonable. Batternut (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Kierzek BMK, expressed it on the talk page; "editorial judgment". The fact is that as editors of articles for reading by the general public, we need to be selective about what to include and to follow consensus. Major awards are included. It has to do with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." And if ever brought up to GA, minor awards are not to be included pursuant to Good Article criterion 3b, which calls for staying "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". We do not want the article to become bogged down in trivial detail and must keep byte size of said article in mind, as well. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Anachronist My only involvement in this dispute is a comment I made on Talk:Ernst Rohm, in which I expressed a view that awards notable enough to merit their own stand-alone articles are likely not minor, and there should be no controversy about wiki-linking such awards in articles about people who earned them. This is an encyclopedia, and wikilinking relevant awards for which we already have articles enhances the encyclopedic content. I disagree with the "editorial judgment" that a mere two additional wikilinks, without the possibility of further growth in the list, constitutes "unnecessary detail". ~Anachronist (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Ernst Rohm#Decorations and awards discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.