• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

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

• Tesla, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Stonkaments (talk · contribs)
• QRep2020 (talk · contribs)
• Stepho-wrs (talk · contribs)
• MartinezMD (talk · contribs)
• A7V2 (talk · contribs)
• IPBilly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement as to whether Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel and Ian Wright should be listed as founders in the Tesla, Inc. infobox. As the footnote in the infobox notes, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original founders of Tesla; Musk, Straubel, and Wright only negotiated to call themselves co-founders after-the-fact, in a lawsuit settlement in 2009. As shown on the talk page discussion, reliable sources consistently and clearly name only Eberhard and Tarpenning as the sole co-founders of Tesla. I believe the infobox should reflect the determination made by these reliable sources, and only list Eberhard and Tarpenning as founders. Editors opposed to this change argue that the lawsuit settlement means the true founders of the company is now a "disputed" fact, which should be recognized by including Musk, Straubel, and Wright as founders as well. This feels to me like allowing the involved parties to re-write history, because the verifiable facts show that the true founders were only Eberhard and Tarpenning. The additional context of the lawsuit and settlement allowing Musk, Straubel, and Wright to call themselves co-founders is better suited for the article's main text, not the infobox.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Founders

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you can provide input on whether the lawsuit settlement makes the founders of Tesla a "disputed" fact that warrants mention in the infobox, or if reliable sources clearly show the verified facts to be that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole co-founders of the company.

Summary of dispute by QRep2020

There are two participants who reject the current Founder configuration in the Infobox, two who affirm it, and two who argue that the field should not be used in the specific article at all; two of these participants came to the discussion via a request for outside comment. Clearly there is a disagreement that needs resolution.

My case for rejection is that the Infobox is not an appropriate place for including contingent labels that were "agreed upon" after the fact. The Founders field should consist of only relevant verified historical (abbreviated) statements as that is how any particular standard field of any type of Infobox consistently presents in Misplaced Pages articles across all categories. If there was a standard field in Infobox (company) template designated Retroactive Founders then that is where Musk, Straubel, etc. would be listed, but there is not. Placing the three retroactive founders' names in the Founders field with a footnote attached to them does not grant some sort of exception especially since the article itself already explains how Eberhard and Tarpenning created the company, coined its name, etc. as well as what happened in the subsequent lawsuit and agreement.

Edit: Italicized text supplants earlier text. QRep2020 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stepho-wrs

The editors who think that it should only be 2 founders have equated founding with those who signed the incorporation papers. But there is no legal definition of founder and even WP says at Startup_company#Founders/entrepreneurs that "The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company." Article currently lists 5 founders, with a footnote on the 3 disputed names with details and reference - ie very compact but lets the interested reader know.  Stepho  talk  11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MartinezMD

I don't see a problem keeping the list of founders as all 5 of the men in question. The three founders in question have proper footnotes explaining that they came later but that a negotiation led to the 5 being listed as such. Who are we trying to please here by saying otherwise? MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A7V2

The discussion seemed to go a lot into a specific definition of what a founder is, but I feel this is not relevant and instead Misplaced Pages should reflect what reliable sources say, which as per my own comments I feel are just the two founders. That said, I agree with IPBilly's point that the infobox should only provide a summary, and contain as little information as necessary. So I feel that under the circumstances of it being disputed, the infobox category should either be left blank or have something like "disputed" so that it can be discussed in the article. Given that only one user (not including myself just now) has responded to this idea (which hadn't been raised by anyone else), I'm not sure what the point of this discussion here is? The discussion on the talk page is only a week old and IPBilly's comment just two days old. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IPBilly

The disagreement appears to be centered around the criteria for inclusion in the Infobox:founders category; the individuals responsible for originally incorporating the organization or persons whom carry the title "founder". Side A would like to change the infobox to list only the two "original" founders; including the 3 others would be rewriting history because they gained the title only after a court settlement. Side B would like to list all 5 founders because those 5 individuals all have the title "founder". Both sides have produced verifiable sources that support their position. I proposed splitting the baby and removing the category from the infobox entirely because either listing of 2 or 5 founders does not "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Given that there seems to be no disagreement 3/5 founders were added post-hoc, the key fact is that the "true" founders are disputed/honorary. IPBilly (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc. discussion

Any reason we can't have the first two and then add the other three as added in the 2009 lawsuit in parentheses? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how that helps solve whether the (or any) disputed "fact" warrants mention in the Infobox. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of this discussion is primarily caused by different ideas of what a founder is. Some have taken it to mean the people who signed the incorporation papers - and only those people. This does work for the majority of cases. However, the term is only a vague term that just means someone heavily involved during the early periods of the company. Misplaced Pages's own definition allows for founders to be whoever they agree it to be. It is perfectly acceptable to put all 5 founders in the infobox, as long as there is some (hopefully short) marker to point the reader to a fuller explanation of the controversy.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the only one making an argument based on the definition of a founder. Others are simply relying on the determination made by reliable sources as to who the founders are, consistent with WP:NOTTRUTH Stonkaments (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. per WP:NOTTRUTH "In most other contexts, there are more than truths and lies under the sun: there are half-truths, lack of context, words with double or unclear meanings, logical fallacies, cherry-picked pieces of information to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion, inadvertent reuse of someone else's lies, and even misunderstandings. A statement may fail to adequately convey the state of affairs regarding some topic, without that statement being an actual lie." Reliable sources have made both determinations of the founders, and it is up to us to decide which definition is appropriate and therefore which determination is most appropriate for the infobox. Sort of like how the original roadster was a hacked up Lotus Elise with an electric motor, nobody disagrees that it was a "Tesla" because it carried the Tesla badge, even though it originally started as a Lotus. In that scenario we'd be discussing the definition of "manufacturer", and whether or not a company must manufacture the chassis (or what minimum amount of contribution is necessary) in order to claim it as their own. IPBilly (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you, me and some of the references are using different definitions of founder. Which is why we simply list them all, add a marker and an explanation the controversy in the text (or footnote in this case). No lies, no hiding but still simple in the infobox.  Stepho  talk  21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We keep going back to talk of definitions, but who are we to determine how a word is to be used on Misplaced Pages (or anywhere really)? Or to force a "new" usage via some extraneous introduction of footnotes? My point is we should instead to look at how other Infoboxes for company articles operate and try to maintain conformity, which is to be done by either using verified historical statements as the contents of the fields or by simply by leaving fields out entirely. I think the latter is a bit extreme given how readily available documentation about the creation of Tesla is, but it is certainly more consistent with other wide Infobox usage than mixing statement types (spurred by conflating the concept of a retroactive founder with that of a founder). Also, since we are already treading familiar ground here, maybe we should refrain from discussion until some other uninvolved editor contributes?QRep2020 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

We keep going back to definitions because the heart of our disagreement is our definitions of what a founder is. My use of the word agrees with the WP definition and Tesla's own usage. Your use of the word agrees with some respectable organisations (eg Britannica). Calling them "retroactive founder"s is the no true Scotsman argument. When it's not clear cut we just list both sides and move on. Unfortunately this is an edge case, so most company infoboxes will not us give any guidance. But yes, I'm happy to hear from more people.  Stepho  talk  23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not fallacious reasoning on my part and I take offense to that claim. There are those who initiated a company and who everyday English language speakers use "founders" to refer to - and then there are those who are allowed to call themselves founders because of some legal procedure. Call the former and latter whatever you want but there are obviously material differences between the two, i.e. one precedes the other by playing a fundamental causal role in a company's inception.

Tabling that matter, I would like to call attention to why this idea that the "definition of "founder" on Misplaced Pages" is ambiguous is inaccurate. On Template:Infobox_company, the line concerning the Founder field provides: "The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company." While it is not a particularly illustrative definition, it is one that does work but not one that "captures" Elon Musk and the two others who were not "in the room" when the company was started. Why? Because while some of us might want to allow a broad definition of "founder", no one has called into question what it takes to be said to have founded some company. The five of them did not found the company - only two of them did that in mid-2003, and then years later three others gained the right to call themselves founders. We might be tempted to think etymologically about all of this, but that is irrelevant: We know what it is to found a company (i.e. to initiate it) and Misplaced Pages gives us a definition of "founder" that has the word refer to those who founded some given company. The state of Misplaced Pages's definition of "founder" is not cause for deciding on a new one that could in turn facilitate the five names being list as they are now - it is fine the way it is and the way it is is cause for removing three of the names. QRep2020 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Without arguing for either side, I’d like to point out that according to WP:INFOBOXREF, inline references should only be included in an infobox when the material both (1) requires a reference and (2) does not appear in the body of the article. If we don’t break this rule, then the only acceptable resolutions here seem to be either (A) including all five in the infobox with no inline reference or (B) including only the two original founders in the infobox. The current state of the infobox (C) includes all five with the latter three having an inline reference, whose content is then repeated in the main body of the article. (Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.)

If we apply WP:INFOBOXREF strictly, then only (A) or (B) can be a real resolution here. However, we shouldn’t just always blindly follow rules. This may end up being a case where WP:INFOBOXREF shouldn’t apply, so (C) might be appropriate.

Now that I’ve pointed out the relevant infobox reference guidelines, I will say that if the choices are only between (A) and (B), we should prefer (B) over (A), because (A) seems misleading and would confuse people who later read In the main body of the article that three of the founders are disputed. For this reason alone, I believe we should all prefer (B) over (A), even if you genuinely believe that all five should otherwise be listed in the infobox.

However, choosing between (B) and (C) is much more difficult and is the main dispute at issue here. To those who believe that (C) is more appropriate than (B), I will point out that you may be tempted to prefer (B) solely because WP:INFOBOXREF strongly and directly disincentivizes (C). Does this reframing of the dispute in the context of WP:INFOBOXREF help others to reevaluate their position? If you originally preferred (C) over (B), does knowing this context make you any more favorable toward (B)? Or do you instead feel that (C) should be preferred over (B) despite WP:INFOBOXREF? — Eric Herboso 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for this explication. I promote (B) in part because of "the rules" but also because the Infobox should provide quick verified historical statements for people who are skimming the article to read. Whatever the intention of creating the Infobox as an element for Misplaced Pages, I doubt anyone would deny that it is used by a lot of users to gleam key information about the subject of the article without having to go through the entire article itself to find it. Even with these inline references, having the five names possibly misleads some of these skimming readers as to the early history of the company because inline references requires an active action, i.e. clicking, to reveal the additional information they contain. QRep2020 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Amazing! From the same arguments we come to the opposite conclusions. You said yourself that many readers will skim the infobox and come away with only those facts. By listing only 2 founders they will indeed come away agreeing with your conjecture that there are only 2 founders and that there is no more to say about it. But there is more to say about it. There are 3 more people that the company believes are founders. Since "founders" is rather vaguely defined, both 2 and 5 founders have supporting arguments.

Similar, the same argument applies if we list 5 founders with no further adornment - skim readers will think there are 5 founders and there is no more to say about it. This agrees with the definition that Tesla and myself use but obviously not with the definition that Britannica and yourself agree with. And again, the reader is short changed.

Therefore, there are only 2 honest representations we can make in the infobox.

1. Make no mention of it in the infobox and let the reader find it in the main text. The reader will not be led into either your or my interpretation alone and will have to make up their own mind from the references given. Possibly the founder field can have the words "disputed, see text" or similar.
2. Mention all possible founders with a marker of some type to indicate that some are in contention. Again, the reader is not lead to blindly follow either you interpretation or my interpretation.

WP:INFOBOXREF gives the very sound advice that "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Ie, it does not strictly rule them out but strongly suggests that they are only needed in unusual cases. In our case, whether there are 2 or 5 founders is not obvious. We could argue that the number of founders is expanded in another part of the article. But if we had either 2 or 5 founders listed and no marker then skim readers will not realise that and might come away with the impression that the particular founders listed (2 or 5) are the entire story. Therefore, there must be some form of marker, reference, footnote or similar on whatever we list.

Note also that even though the infobox currently has a footnote marker, the explanatory text and its reference are not in the infobox - thus taking up very little space in the infobox. I have no problem if you want to make that footnote a little longer to show that some authorities (eg Britannica) have the opposite opinion than Tesla does.  Stepho  talk  09:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what Stepho-wrs has said here, and I disagree that WP:INFOBOXREF is particularly helpful in this case. This policy to me is written in such a way that it cannot be "strictly applied" for it only offers a suggestion: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed..." - to me this says that in unusual circumstances it is perfectly acceptable to include references in the infobox. Also I will point out that explanatory footnotes are not inline references, so this would not be a reason to justify their removal. If others feel that the explanatory footnote itself (if it is decided to keep one) has been adequately cited in the body of the article then they (the citations) could be removed from it (the footnote). I'm unsure why "Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.", and Eric Herboso has given no reason for this. To the second part of what Stepho-wrs I agree 100%. Clearly given that there is a dispute, if either 2 or 5 are included then there ought to be a footnote explaining the controversy/dispute, or otherwise the field should be left blank or preferably (as I now feel) it should be listed as "disputed", perhaps with a link to a relevant section. A7V2 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I could live with the Disputed indication, for now. QRep2020 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Option D is probably a non-starter because it doesn't resolve any of the disputes here, it's very much a "everybody loses" outcome. That said, my reasoning for suggesting that option is as follows: a) it avoids re-hashing this same discussion some time in the future with different parties that have the same opinions. Each side has an entirely rational reason for wanting only two or all five individuals and neither side is "wrong", but both sides can't be right. B) A seemingly definitive statement that the other three are not founders is as misleading as suggesting they are to somebody that doesn't/won't read the rest of the article. I was initially of the opinion that all five should be included but persuasive arguments have been made for only the original two that have swayed my opinion slightly. I think that the casual reader will come to the page with some idea that Musk was one of the founders (right or wrong), and seeing the name not listed could lead to further confusion or a negative reaction of "I'd better fix this", I believe the mindset of trying to avoid future edit wars is against some wiki policy however. C) There is not (as far as I'm aware) a policy stating that every infobox field must be used, by omitting it there is no way that the reader, casual or interested, would be mislead. I'm not opposed to simply noting the disputed status and linking to the relevant section, but I do not know how controversial the founder's dispute is outside of[REDACTED] and this option may be drawing more attention to the matter than is warranted.16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPBilly (talk • contribs)

• Volunteer Note - I see that there has been extended discussion here, and the discussion appears to have been productive. Usually discussion before a moderator arrives is not productive, so I thank the editors for being collaborative. Do you still want a moderator? I am willing to come up with a revised set of rules that encourage constructive back-and-forth. The rules will still say to be civil and concise, because those are always a good idea, and not to edit the article, which you are not doing, because that is a bad idea. Do you want very lightweight moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would still appreciate a moderator's assistance. Stonkaments (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, moderators are always welcome.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

Since the participants have been doing well but have said that a moderator will help, I will provide this statement.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. These rules seem to have been followed, which is good.

The main issue appears to be the infobox. The editors have agreed that there are four options about the Founders field in the infobox.

A. List all five people. An explanation can be p rovided in the text of the article.

B. List the first two people. An explanation can be provided in the text of the article.

C. List all five people, but with an explanatory note for the three who were added.

D. Omit the Founder field in the infobox.

So are there any other options on the infobox? Also, are there any other issues requiring dispute resolution?

If there are no other options, then we need to decide whether we will resolve the infobox question by a consensus here at DRN, or use an RFC. If in doubt, we should use an RFC. If we are using an RFC, the important consideration is to be sure that it is clear and properly worded.

Each editor should provide a brief statement in the section below. If you comment on another editor's statement, indent your own comments at least two spaces. If you reply to a comment, indent your reply at least two more spaces. Make your own statement also. However, it is probably better at this time only to make your own statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors after moderation started

There is also the option that came up in the above part where we have no names listed and instead put 'Disputed' in the field, perhaps as a Wikilink to the appropriate subsection that discusses the matter at length.

For the reasons I supplied above and elsewhere, I am opposed to A and C (with prejudice for A), my vote is for B, but I will support D or E (assuming E is the 'Disputed' option). QRep2020 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I find all of the 4 options have problems.

A. Listing all 5 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 5 and that there is nothing more to know.

B. Listing only 2 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 2 and that there is nothing more to know.

C. Listing all 5 with a note. A note inside the infobox takes a up a lot of space in what is meant to be a summary. Unless you meant something very short like "Under dispute, see main text" or a footnote link.

D. If we omit the field altogether then some well meaning soul will see the missing information and add it - bringing us back to today's situation. Possibly we should fill it with a comment similar to "don't fill this in, see dispute arguments in text".

As I see it, we want to keep the infobox uncluttered but not misleading. I see the only tenable options as:

1. List no founders in the infobox but have text similar to "Under dispute, see main text". Same as QRep2020's option E.

2. List all 5 but add a footnote to elsewhere in the page that explains the situation fully. I can see now that skim readers might miss the subtlety of this and just think that there are exact 5 founders.

3. List all 5 but add extra line similar to "Under dispute, see main text". This is starting to get cluttered.

4. List all 5 but for the 3 disputed names add "(disputed)" to that name. Also slightly cluttered but at least it is clear.

I could live with any of these. Of course, there should be a section in the main text in all cases.  Stepho  talk  23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with including an option E where the infobox would say something to the effect of "Disputed, see ". It seems pretty clear that any option that involves listing the two or five founders (option A, B, or C) wouldn't accurately convey the full story — though personally I still believe that option B is the most accurate and truthful, as it aligns with the vast majority of reliable sources. As for deciding to do a RfC instead of resolving the dispute here, what would be the reasoning for that? We've received input from everyone who's been involved in the talk page discussion, so in my mind it seems easier to reach an agreement here rather than changing forums again. But I'm not very familiar with this process, so if others think a RfC would be better I'm perfectly fine with that too. Stonkaments (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

As it was A7V2's suggestion, it looks like we have a clear majority who can "live with" E. Have we then cause for ending the Dispute and making the edit on Tesla, Inc.? QRep2020 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that there are two options missing, E as outlined by those above (having "disputed" or "Under dispute, see main text" or similar) as well as having just the 2 names but a note pointing out the dispute (which I'll call option F). My preference would definitely be for option E, followed by F, then C, then D. I agree with the others that leaving D blank could result in it being constantly filled in all of the time, but I definitely don't like the idea of options A or B as there clearly is a "dispute" (for lack of a better word) between the majority (but not all) reliable sources and the company itself, and having just 2 or just 5 with no note is misleading if one doesn't read the whole article. A7V2 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

It appears that all of the participants agree that they will accept having Founder in the Infobox say: "Disputed, see main text". Is there agreement that we can compromise on Disputed?

Are there any other issues, or do we closed as Resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors

I think my preference would be to list all 5, with a clear designation of their disputed status, possibly using superscript to limit clutter. The only reason for this is that it may be difficult to quickly parse the names of the founders (disputed or not) from the text describing the whole situation. This is a low value concern, however, and a simple "disputed" would suffice. IPBilly (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I support “disputed” and closing this discussion. I think any issues with quickly parsing the text could be resolved by making a subsection titled “Founding” (or similar) in the History section of the article, with a clear and concise summary of the history of events, and linking to that from the infobox. Stonkaments (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't want to come across as though I'm particularly dug-in on this issue, I only meant to give an alternative perspective (which to be clear, is that tables>prose </humor>) regarding the various proposals based on how I use Misplaced Pages. All considered, my concern with readability is minuscule in comparison to the numerous other issues affecting the article as a whole. IPBilly (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you agree. I also agree that there is plenty issues affecting the article - you should raise the ones you find especially exacerbating and I imagine others will concur. QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Location of dispute

• Eugene Scalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Evrik (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I filed a previous dispute regarding removing a sentence on the 'Eugene Scalia' that violated the Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View policy. An independent moderator named 'Deb' reviewed the article and agreed that the sentence as written needed to be removed. She did so. Afterwards, the user named Evrik, put the sentence back. I have provided a very lengthy explanation in the Talk section why the sentence violated Misplaced Pages policy. I just removed the sentence again.

I request that you enforce your own Misplaced Pages policy and your own ruling on the sentence. If there are ways to prevent Evrik from adding back the offending sentence, I request you do so. Otherwise, can you inform him in the talk section that adding the sentence back is not acceptable and I intend to file a dispute against a user if he does it again. I would prefer not to do that, but bullying against Misplaced Pages policy should not be allowed. I am grateful for your time.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Eugene_Scalia

'Deb' already ruled the sentence as written violated the Misplaced Pages policy and should be removed.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please clarify to Evrik that he may not re-add the sentence that was removed. If there are ways in the code to block him form being able to do so again, I request that you do that. If there are further consequences that are possible, I request that they be considered or at least that he is warned in the talk section of any consequences.

Summary of dispute by Evrik

Eugene Scalia discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Mugsalot (talk · contribs)
• H0llande (talk · contribs)
• Optra2021 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The underlying issue is the identity debate within this particular ethnic group. The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the accepted term of self-identification within this ethnicity.

This group is currently divided between those who still hold to the identity "Assyrian", whilst others have now adopted "Aramean", amongst others. Organisations in favour of the identity label "Aramean" use the term to apply to the entirety of the ethnic group, as opposed to "Assyrian", and do not argue that they have separated from those who identify as "Assyrian", and vice versa.

As "Assyrian" is accepted as the catchall name for this ethnicity in academia, due to its former status as the sole label, there are frequent POV edits to Arameans in relation to the modern people that identify with this label. Much of these users argue that "Aramean" and "Assyrian" are ethnically separate from each other, typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers, providing no evidence at all, or providing unreliable evidence.

This is an unending issue that has existed without resolution for over a decade, of which I have dealt with constantly since I joined in 2014.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

The dispute has been extensively discussed recently at Talk:Arameans#Modern identity Talk:Arameans#RfC about the modern Aramean identity Talk:Arameans#Arameans are Assyrians

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think there needs to be a permanent statement that the article Arameans is purely for the ancient people, and the modern people that identity as "Aramean" should be treated alongside "Assyrian" at Assyrian people, in line with the academic consensus that they are in fact the same ethnic group. There could be possibly be a permanent ban on IP users editing the page, as they are typically the propagators of the belief that they are ethnically separate from one another.

Summary of dispute by H0llande

Summary of dispute by Optra2021

On the Aramean talk page, user Mugsalot quote: "In the last fifty years, West‐Syriac Christians have continued to PROMOTE Assyrian identity as a means of uniting all Syriac Christians, regardless of religious affiliation, within a single nation...MANY Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have RESISTED the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology..."" Now Mugsalot contradicts himself by saying "The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the ACCEPTED term of self-identification WITHIN this ethnicity."" Wasn't it resisted??? "Assyrian" has neither been the commonly used term in academia nor is it accepted by most scholars or within these peoples! It is commonly used in English media, because most people who identify as "Assyrians" emigrated to English-speaking countries. I am not sure why Mugsalot is trying to fool everyone here again. He uses endless low-quality sources/references even written by Assyrian nationalists to justify his biased behavior. I invite everyone to read through the talk pages archives on Assyrian people and Arameans to see how high-quality Aramean related academic sources have been vandalized, removed, falsified or never made it to Misplaced Pages just to fit the narrative of Assyrian POV editing! To make it clear to outsiders what is going on with the endless edit wars: For the last 2,000 years, these various groups of people commonly referred themselves as Suryoye/Suraye (literally "Syrians" in English) in their various Aramaic languages/dialects. The last 100 years some groups started to form national-political movements labeled as "Assyrians" with an identity and ideology based on scholar, e. g. A, B,... . Most Suryoye/Suraye rejected this, leading the formation of their own national-political movement, namely the Arameans based on scholar, e. g. C, D,..., their pre-nationalistic tradition, folklore, culture and literature in the words of their own forefathers in their native tongue that they are descendants of the ancient Arameans. Ancient Assyrians and Arameans used to be two distinct ethnicities. Since scholars, e. g. C and D do not fit Assyrian nationalistic views (Evident in Mugsalot's above comment: "...typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers..."), sources are invalid in the eyes of him and his companions, therefore they have to be removed or vandalized, thus hurting the mission of Misplaced Pages being an encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources and Information then creating the corresponding articles, no matter if it is pro-contra Assyrian, Aramean whatever. The current Assyrian people article is clearly POV edited by mixing ancient Assyrians, which is also very controversial in academia that these modern groups are descendents of them or political Assyrian ideologies that are not supported by other scholars or even within the group itself. Pro-Assyrian nationalistic writers such as Mugsalot and Co are referring to WIKICOMMONNAME, but forget that it would only apply, if the overall content is the SAME, which is not the case! Now Mugsalot is heavily destroying English Wikipedias credibility by calling the Arameans an "Assyrian" subgroup, deciding who is who based on his OWN assumptions! Todays Arameans are their own ethnic group, identity, flag, history, organisations, e. g. World Council of Arameans who represents the Aramean nation, including the Assyrians to the United Nations (UN). Arameans are recognised as an ethnicity by the state of Israel. A small "subgroup" wouldn't be able to built such a strong network worldwide. From Mugsalot's text above, it is obvious, he is not interested in finding a solution other than keeping the Assyrian POV.

My suggestion to solve this problem, we should take a look at German Misplaced Pages and it works perfectly there:

Assyrians and Arameans articles about the ancient, pre-Christian people only.

Assyrians (present) and Aramean (present) about the present people only, similar to how we have Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrians, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) articles on English Misplaced Pages. The case between those South-Slavic groups is very similar to that between present Assyrians and Arameans. Serbians claim Bosnians to be Serbians, while Bosnians reject this and claim Serbians to be Bosnians though they speak mutual intelligible languages. Mugsalot already quoted from a source there was no unified "Assyrian" nation to begin with, therefore "Assyrian" is neither the generic term to describe these people as a whole nor are the Arameans a subgroup of anyone. Even within the Bosnians, we have Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats articles. Mugsalot and other Assyrian nationalists are trying to force Arameans and other Syriac groups under the highly disputive "Assyrian" term to be the generic term for these various Aramaic-speaking and Syriac Christian groups, which is not supported by a lot of other academic sources/studies. This would be like if some Italians join Spanish nationalism and forcing other Italians to be Spaniards as well. Ironically, the so called "dialects" Turoyo Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Arameans/Syriacs and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Assyrians are mutual unintelligible. Therefore it should be reflected by creating independent articles to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and prevent Assyrian POVs.

Syriac Christians or Suryoye/Suraye about the Christian period

The Historian Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. He says: "The people we Greek call Syrians, they call themselves Arameans" From: See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14 https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_15 --Optra2021 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Arameans discussion

hello i am willing to volunteer to moderate this dispute. any objections? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Sorry, for my long text, but outsiders should get a neutral point of view, what happened, why those countless edit warrings, ... . Hopefully by giving examples, you understand the topic a little bit more.  

Btw, here is a list of Wikipedians with an Assyrian identity, which has successfully established and infiltrated on English Misplaced Pages. If you pay attention to those who contributed Aramean related academic sources in the past, they mostly got reported by these Assyrian individuals for allegedly "POV" editing and got blocked by administrators, who are unfamiliar with this matter. There are almost zero experienced Wikipedians specialized in Aramean-related topics, which should be suspicious and alarming. WikiProject Aramea is virtually dead ever since. Mugsalot and others are trying to fool unfamilar administrators by stating "same people" or "WIKI:COMMONNAME". The current English Misplaced Pages articles do not reflect the reality at all! "Assyrian" is not simply a name, but identity and political ideology reflected in the highly disputive Assyrian people article by forcing various Syriac-Christian groups under its umbrella term. Trying to fool readers, these groups of people are descendants of the infamous ancient Assyrians, which is rejected by many scholars and the Arameans themselves. Holidays such as newly created "Kha-b nisan" an Assyrian nationalist holiday, which not celebrated by Arameans. Syriac-Orthodox people being native outside of the so called "Assyrian" homeland are not seen as "Assyrians" by nationalists yet getting Assyrianized on English Misplaced Pages to avoid any signs of an Aramean ethnic group, e. g. the town Sadad and its inhabitants are clearly of Aramean descent h ttps://youtu.be/WSZeohqHHmE, but on Misplaced Pages it says "Category:Assyrian settlements". I could give endless examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Assyrian_Wikipedians. Optra2021 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Optra2021: If you pay attention, most of those who contribute to Aramean topics are banned because they frequently engage in sockpuppetry, including User:MixedButHumann and User:Aram-Israel, the former of which had written this POV edit which I reverted for the reasons I set out on the talk page, and stated my willingness to find a compromise. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Aramea was similarly created by User:MaronitePride, another sockpuppet.

You've again proven my point that you are relying on either no academic evidence or unreliable evidence, such as referencing a YouTube video. I provided a number of quotes from reliable sources, and I do not mean quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC, here, to attest that Arameans and Assyrians are considered the same ethnic group. I find it bizarre that Optra2021 is asserting his POV that they are separate from one another, yet passionately defends this edit that is contrary to his argument, which uses the label "Aramean" as an umbrella term instead of Assyrian, as seen in the Iraq section. He, as well as others, frequently engages in accusations of Assyrian nationalism, when in fact I have no relation to this people whatsoever. Mugsalot (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Showing the video was to demonstrate the ridiculous chauvinism by editors like you to twist facts. I highly doubt you understand the issue here, do you? Even if both groups are of the same ethnic stock, both groups reject each others identity and ideology supported by numerous sources/scholars, therefore you can't talk about one ethnic group (it should be clarified what defines them as one ethnic group instead of two or more) from a neutral point of view and this must be reflected on English Misplaced Pages, not from the point of view by Mugsalot, Assyrian editors, Aramaean editors,... ! Scholar A or B claim these peoples to be descendants of the ancient Assyrians as clearly stated in the POV section of the Assyrian people article, while scholar C or D claim these people to be descendants of the ancient Arameans. People like Mugsalot come in to decide on their OWN PREFERENCE that Pro-Assyrian scholar A or B are correct and pro-Aramean scholar C or D are wrong, therefore only content that suits the narrative of Assyrian POV editing the best, thus vandalizing, removing or block contributions to Misplaced Pages. Accusing Aramean or contra-Assyrian related contributions to be "POVs". New editors are accused to be sockpuppets and get immediately blocked hence why unfamiliar administrators should be suspicious a large group of Assyrian Wikipedians exist while many Wikipedians specialized in Aramean or contra-Assyrian related topics do not exist or many were/will be blocked due to wrong accuses. Today I was also accused to be a sockpuppet! "...quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC,..." Numerous references, e. g. 1 to 5 given on the Assyrian continuity article are all simple websites, not academic sources unlike the academic source I provided above, which Mugsalot tried to weaken by saying "philosopher". The quotation is from CAMBRIDGE Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956. You know what Cambridge is, Mugsalot!? Again Mugsalot is showing his biased behavior not interested in finding a solution. To teach Mugsalot how to contribute according to Wikipedias policy, here is a contra-Assyrian academic source against Pro-Assyrian scholar Parpola:“a careful reading of Parpola’s articles and the introduction to Assyrian Prophecies reveals arguments that are often circular and flawed, in which, by virtue of an enthusiastic presentation, what remains to be proved is transformed into evidence for a construction that resembles doctrine more than theory” - J.Cooper “Assyrian prophecies the Assyrian Tree and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, Gnosticism, and much more” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:3 (2000) p430

The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission J. F. Coakley p366 "I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh know to readers of the Old Testament. The link has proved irresistible to the imagination. In modern times, Syrian children have been named 'Sargon', 'Nebuchadnezzar'. etc.; the winged lions of Nineveh have appeared as national symbols; and, in short, the name is now inseprable from a whole bogus ethnology."

Pro-Aramean academic source, e. g.:Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page:120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye , who are the Suryoye , Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye , Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye , that is, Suryoye '. Who are the Suryoye to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference betweenhis and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo and Aramoyo ""Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye , or Aramoye '.""This equation is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's Chronicle."(See Dorothea Weltecke)

S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"In many Syriac writers Aramoyo and Suryoyo are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"

None of these academic sources and many others made it into English Misplaced Pages thanks to Mugsalot and Co. or could be accommodated into Assyrian POV written articles and sections. As you can see, the "Assyrian" terminology is highly disputed to be used on the Arameans. Unlike Assyrian POV editor Mugsalot and Co, I am interested in solving this problem. Creating specific, independent articles similar to German Misplaced Pages would be the best solution and in line with Misplaced Pages's policy to be a neutral platform without favoring any party. It should be noted Maronites and Chaldean Catholics articles exist on Misplaced Pages, who also happen to be Syriac Christian groups. Optra2021 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll tackle your evidence firstly. Your provision of a quote from a 1st century BC philosopher is contrary to WP:PRIMARY as it is your own interpretation, and thus unreliable, regardless of whether Cambridge published it or not. Plus it should be common sense that a quote from over 2000 years ago is irrelevant to a conversation about modern identity. Per WP:YTREF, that YouTube is not a reliable source as it is not from a recognised, reliable organisation or agency. It's somewhat suspicious that you're directly quoting the same evidence as here. The quote from Brock & Coakley, available here, discusses content that is again irrelevant to a discussion on a modern ethnic group as it is discussing ancient ethnic terms. If you would continue reading you would see "In modern times the ethnic identity of ‘Aramean’ has been taken up in some circles of the W.-Syr. diaspora as a corrective to the popularity of Assyrian themes", again demonstrating that this is an identity debate within a single ethnic group.

Your quote from here, whilst interesting, again discusses content irrelevant to the modern ethnic group as it discusses the ethnic terms used in the literature of a historian in the 12th century. You have actually provided no evidence relevant to the modern ethnic groups. If one was to look at the Aramean Democratic Organisation's website, you can find they sponsor the belief that Assyrians and Arameans are the same ethnic group, "The Arameans (including "Assyrians" and Chaldeans)". Optra2021 and others constitute the fringe that believe that they are separate from one another.

One can look to recognised human rights organisations, such as Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation or Minority Rights Group International , to see Assyrian is accepted as the common umbrella term for this ethnic group. Or one can see encyclopedias acknowledge that Arameans are Assyrians, eg Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, p. 30. Mugsalot (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - User:Mugsalot, User:Clone commando sev - There is an RFC in progress on this article talk page. Does the topic of this DRN differ from the topic of the RFC, and, if so, how? If they are the same or mostly the same, this DRN should be closed. If they are different, it is important to clarify what the scope of this DRN is. We don't conduct moderated discussion when another dispute resolution process is also going on. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The RFC was swamped by SPAs and other users who have since been blocked, and has been inactive since 11 August, so I would not consider it an ongoing dispute resolution. Also, the topic of the RFC was the purpose of the Arameans article, whereas this DRN revolves around the usage of the terms "Aramean" and "Assyrian" across all relevant articles. Mugsalot (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Mugsalot just started edit warring on the Arameans article without waiting for the case to be officially closed. He simply reverted it. He is not an authorized administrator to make such decisions and proves my points that he is an POV editor.--Optra2021 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Space Ghost Coast to Coast episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trivialist (talk · contribs)
• 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D160:45D8:B8CB:7A7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There seems to be a minor disagreement on rather the episode Joshua is part of season 4 or 5. I have posted sources and Youtube links that show it is part of season 4, but each time I do User:Trivialist claims I am wrong and anything I post is just random links

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:List_of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes Tried to tell user to see talk page in hopes of him talking it out with me but he refuses.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Have others join in on the discussion or have a vote on the subject

Summary of dispute by Trivialist

Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D160:45D8:B8CB:7A7

I noticed Joshua was listed as part of Season 5. The episode has the same opening as all other season 4 episodes the only difference is that it has a 1998 copyright date at the end that is the only thing that makes it different. so I tried to change it but Trivialist decided he wanted to engage in edit warring I tried to tell him to please come to the talk page so it doesnt look like he is fighting just out of bordom or to start trouble. but he refused. I think more people should help and discuss this. Not just me and him.

List of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Ahmedhamdy007 (talk · contribs)
• Julietdeltalima (talk · contribs)
• Materialscientist (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

in the old page it was writen that an egyptian and english dish was inspired by the indian dish a user have edited this article and said that the egyptian dish is not inspired by this dish i have reverted him several times and provides 5 links to prove the orginal text but he also and anther user have reverted my info i am asking how to solve that dispute

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

if each one of the three of us can provide sufficient proves and links that ensure his information and i am sure that the other users dont have any proves or evidence about their info

Summary of dispute by Julietdeltalima

Summary of dispute by Materialscientist

Khichdi discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Corvus tristis (talk · contribs)
• Tvx1 (talk · contribs)
• Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs)
• 5225C (talk · contribs)
• DB1729 (talk · contribs)
• Falcadore (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Tvx1 restores incorrect info to the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. Official final standings in all first and third-party sources clearly represents only one final total for each constructor without any bracketed extra. Points that McLaren scored overall after the finish of Italian Grand Prix are irrelevant to the finite standings and is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION in the context of such table. I have asked many times to provide any sources for this info, but have not received any, so I will provide the sources which I have: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2007/team.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121031021811/http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Season_Guide/2007.html https://results.motorsportstats.com/series/formula-one/season/2007 https://www.skysports.com/f1/stats/2007/teams https://www.racefans.net/2007/10/21/2007-championship-final-standings/ https://www.f1mix.com/results/2007-formula-1-world-championship.asp

As you see none of them have number 166 in the season standings. P.S. I have proposed a compromise with putting this amount to the note, but this proposal was ignored by the opposing side.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do believe that you can give neutral interpretation of the policies on that matter, which will resolve this issue.

Summary of dispute by Tvx1

I really don't understand why this was escalated to dispute resolution. And I certainly don't understand why I'm being singled out. This certainly does not only deal with the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. There was a general discussion on a how best to deal with the results of competitors who have been penalized by the deduction of a part or even all of the points they had been awarded during the course of a season. I felt it was a constructive discussion with a general positive atmosphere and thus certainly not a dispute. Unfortunately there a clear consensus on one rule on how to deal in the exact same manner with every potential situation did not appear to emerge. Corvus tristis made one edit to the aforementioned article based on a consensus they perceived had emerged an which added some incorrect facts (adding point totals McLaren had never been credited with to footnote). Upon review of the WT:F1 discussion a did not detect that consensus (certainly not for mentioning the aforementioned totals in any way) and thus decided to revert. I feel that filing this for is an overreaction. I also don't understand the accusations of policies being broken. The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources and care has been taken that our readers are clearly explained that the points between bracket do not count officially.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet

Not sure why this has ended up here, but my input to the discussion was simply that I believe these "points in brackets", i.e. deducted points, points removed from a team's total, "ghost points" if you will, do not belong in a statistical table. They can be explained in text, as they are important. But they no longer exist, and do not exist in source material from which we draw information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 5225C

I participated in the discussion at WT:F1, but at the time this was discussing Racing Point in the 2020 season, and I used the 2007 article as an example.
To me, this issue is quite straightforward. In both situations, points were awarded to the championship but were later removed. Since a constructor's points are the sum of all points scored by a constructor's vehicles, how are we going to account for the difference between points awarded and points counted? Points in brackets are the best way.
In 2007, the team was awarded points at most races, but were specifically excluded from scoring points at the Hungarian GP and then the Belgium GP to the end of the season. Thus, those points were never awarded and never existed. However, when the team was excluded from the championship, we still show the awarded points in brackets - because they existed.
There is no speculation, crystal balling, synthesis, or whatever you want to call it here. The team was credited with 166 points which were later excluded from the standings (ref/ref/ref) The tables account for this.
I do not understand why this issue has gotten to dispute resolution, and I disagree that Tvx1 is in any way responsible for inserting false information. I am happy with the current state of the 2007 article and feel it appropriately addresses the difference in championship points.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DB1729

My only involvement was this comment, which was solely in regards to Racing Point's 2020 parenthetical points. I have no strong opinion on the related, but separate McLaren 2007 issue. --DB1729 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Falcadore

My understanding of the dispute is that User:5225C was defending the usage of 0 (166) to display in 2007 that the McLaren team scored 0 points after being excluded from the World Championship point score but had they not been excluded would have scored 166 points. McLaren however were excluded. What they might have scored is speculation. They did not score those points. Indeed the language is that they were excluded. Not penalised, but removed. Misplaced Pages via WP:Speculation does not encourage speculation as Misplaced Pages records what was, not what might have been. The same applies to Racing Point in 2020. They have been been penalised 15 points, so the total points tabulated includes that penalty. As of the time in the timestamp of this post they scored 66 points. Not 81 points not 66 (81) points. There is a bracketted use of a secondary points number but that refers to dropped points due to the scoring mechanism, not due to penalties applied. Regards; --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Formula One discussion

• Volunteer Note - Two comments. First, other editors took part in the discussion headed 'Points in Brackets' at the WikiProject talk page. Why are they also not being identified? Second, it appears that this is about 2007 Formula One World Championship. I do not see discussion at Talk:Formula One World Championship. There might be other editors watching that talk page who are reading to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Because Tvx1 was the one who reverted my edit. Other parties were involved to the discussion, but not into the reverting. I have notified but, I assume that is situation is at the dead end as we have two polar positions. I just want to hear what will be more correct in the terms of our policies. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. Is it possible for local consensus (reminder: in WT:F1 we don't have reach such for keeping this extra in the table) to prevail policies? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know why you would expect discussion about the 2007 article on Talk:Formula One World Championship. I mean, that is a redirect. Moreover the issue was never with the 2007 article alone. It was a more general issue discussed at WT:F1.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

That was a typo on my part. There should have been discussion at Talk:2007 Formula One World Championship. I apologize for causing confusion by my mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Tvx1: with all due respect, the statement "The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources" is not correct. The number 166 doesn't appear in the only source for the note and you have not provided any other sources which confirm any relation of Italian McLaren points prior exclusion to final McLaren points. As you said it is not official and it is just your original research in the context of the season standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Why do you keep putting the blame on me personally? This is not my original research. I’m not the one who put points between brackets there in the first place. Nor did I write that footnote.Tvx1 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't blame you, I just link it with you because you was the one who restored this points in brackets and the one who defended to keep it in the discussion. If you are not supporting it anymore, maybe it is time to remove this stuff and end this pointless discussion? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note... part 2 First of all- part of the rules of DRN is no back and forth discussion until a volunteer steps up to take the case. So you two need to stop arguing here. Secondly- all involved editors in the talk page discussion must be notified and invited to participate before we will begin mediation here. If you are only concerned with behavior of one editor- (Ie Edit wars) you may want to try ANI instead of here. If you are wanting to find a compromise for a content dispute- you are in the right place! Just get the other editors involved here and we will begin. Until the other editors are invited- No more back and forth discussion please!!! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, I have notified all the participants. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Timtrent (talk · contribs)
• Tsventon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The only truth is that I have been referred to as an eco-colonialist by the Brazilian government to further their political purposes of deflecting their poor track record of protecting the Amazonas rainforest. However, this is an entirely false statement. Buying land in a foreign country to preserve rainforest is not colonialism. With regards to Green Grabbing - Eco-Colonialism and Green Grabbing are two defined terms with different meaning. Vidal’s article does not suggest that I am a Green Grabber; it only refers to the aforementioned statement by the Brazilian government. Therefore to refer to Johan Eliasch in relation to Green Grabbing is not only deliberately misleading but also libellous and defamatory. I believe I have now explained this very clearly, and please understand that there are implications of libel and defamation, so please be so kind to remove the reference to myself and Cool Earth under Green Grabbing without further delay. Firstly, the Guardian Article does not state that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber", so Misplaced Pages is inferring that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber". Secondly, the entire topic is essentially based on a single newspaper article which did not gain any traction. That is not responsible reporting. Misplaced Pages may be an encyclopedia but it also has to be verifiable and accurate. Why doesn't Misplaced Pages write about the other individuals mentioned in the article? Why doesn't Misplaced Pages go to the Cool Earth Website? If Misplaced Pages copied the Guardian article in good faith, it would mention every individual mentioned in the article. The topic has been reported in malicious faith and without foundation. Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/User_talk:37.71.1.37 https://en.wikipedia.org/Green_grabbing

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By removing the malicious accusations

Summary of dispute by Timtrent

Summary of dispute by Tsventon

United Kingdom discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rhea Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ÆCE (talk · contribs)
• NedFausa (talk · contribs)
• Cyphoidbomb (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, This is regarding the edit that I made on section 3 of the article with an intent to re-write few lines in accordance to WP:NPOV and while I was in the process of adding appropriate citations backing my edit, my fellow User:NedFausa reverted my edits with this summary: " Undid revision 976665033 by Special:Contributions/ÆCE Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as "prime suspect" – this is a serious WP:BLP violation" without discussing whether or not I'm done editing the article or his concern with me beforehand. Within a minute or two,(not knowing of the revert then) I added reliable sources(these sources were already used for other citations on the same page.) verifying exactly what I wrote.

But just after adding the needed citations, when I explained myself to User:NedFausa he completely disregarded everything I said and started posting edit warring and WP:BLP violation templates on my as well as on the article's talk page even after I added all the needed citations.

I reverted the article once and he started claiming that I was indulged in an edit war which in actuality did not happen. Then came another User:Cyphoidbomb who again reverted my edit with the summary: (No.) and in response to that when I reverted his change with a summary: (Undid revision 976719161 by Cyphoidbomb (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) he then proceeded to revert the article again with a summary: (everted 1 edit by ÆCE (talk): BLP violation and poor grammar. (TW)).

Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE

User_talk:ÆCE#Edit warring

User_talk:NedFausa#How_exactly_?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to know If am at fault here, as they're saying? Please let all of us know your decision and if I didn't do anything wrong, please suggest them to allow me to restore my edit and further improve it if needed.

Summary of dispute by NedFausa

I have made four edits involving User:ÆCE, all on 4 September 2020.

• 14:15: I undid his revision that included "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case." My edit summary explained, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as 'prime suspect' – this is a serious WP:BLP violation."
• 15:07: I created a new section at his user talk page warning him of his edit warring to restore disputed content at Rhea Chakraborty.
• 15:30: I created a new section at Talk:Rhea Chakraborty alerting editors to the edit warring and BLP violation by ÆCE. I noted in particular that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.
• 15:54: I replied to his attempt at his user talk page to conflate the source I had disputed by substituting a different source.
  

In each instance, I adhered to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines to the best of my understanding. NedFausa (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, as a procedural aside, the filer failed to deliver a notice on my user talk page when he added me to this case. NedFausa (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to summary of dispute by NedFausa

14:15: I undid his revision that included "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case." My edit summary explained, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable – cited source does not identify her as 'prime suspect' – this is a serious WP:BLP violation."

That's because I didn't use it to cite the "accuse" part and was in the process of adding another citation but things were judged and reverted a bit too quickly. I have mentioned all of this in the discussions made on talk pages. I wish I was given like 10-20 more seconds from the time it was reverted to add another source.

15:07: I created a new section at his user talk page warning him of his edit warring to restore disputed content at Rhea Chakraborty.

It was not edit warring, after you reverted my first revision saying the source I cited didn't mention her of being accused anywhere, I changed it only to add the needed citation which you demanded and I was also going to add anyway.

 I noted in particular that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

You did the right thing there because it would have definitely looked like what you're saying, at that instance of time, But I did not intend to leave it that way and was in the process of adding another source, which I also explained to you later.

 I replied to his attempt at his user talk page to conflate the source I had disputed by substituting a different source.

I didn't use it as a substitute, in fact if you see my very last edit on the page, you could see that I've left both the citations, as I originally intended. I just told you about this another citation which I was about to use that would have had also relieved your concern which it did. If anything, it was you who blamed me for "playing games".

I still can't understand how these people can call it a "game", while discussing such a serious topic! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 04:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb

Totally bogus dispute resolution issue. Note that every conversation that ÆCE points to relates to other editors telling them how problematic their edits are. Note that in the How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? section, ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion. Which content? this "minor" edit, this "minor" edit, and this third reversion, along with other comments on other talk pages.

ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput. That's INDEFENSIBLE. This is a sanctionable behaviour covered under ArbCom Misplaced Pages:General sanctions as they pertain to Indian subjects broadly construed. Or by WP:BLP in general and WP:BDP in specific as the topic in "dispute" has to do with the recent (2 months ago) death of Sushant Singh Rajput. For context, check Twitter and other social media outlets for #justiceforSSR, so you can see the attempts to coerce Wikipedians to change the suicide "determination" at Sushant Singh Rajput, and at other Misplaced Pages articles (Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput, Rhea Chakraborty, even Sadak 2...etc.) are continuously assailed by these new accounts who have an agenda to push. ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of. So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification, rather than identifying what Chakraborty is a suspect of, which is what they were challenged to do. This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reply to summary of dispute by Cyphoidbomb

ÆCE's poorly-conceived content suggests VERY strongly through lack of context that Chakraborty killed Rajput.

I didn't say she killed him, I only said that she is "a prime suspect" in the case and here is the citation : coming from the exact same source which is currently being used in the article.

ÆCE's greatest defence thus far is that Hindustan Times called Chakraborty a "prime suspect", but HT didn't even identify what she was a suspect of.

This is written on very top of the article, clearly explaining what she's being a suspect of.

"The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has questioned a number of people in connection with the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The CBI took over the case after a recommendation from the Bihar government on request from Rajput’s family.

In the 78 days since he passed away (since June 14), the CBI has narrowed down its probe and is now focussing on 14 people."

This DR case should quickly result in editors explaining to ÆCE the basic rules of libel and defamation, and how we're not going to be party to vague suggestions that someone is a "prime suspect" in a person's death when that person has not been charged, and there has been no determination that a crime has been committed in that person's death.

I believe you should let them decide what "should" be done, which is why we have this board in the first place.

So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification

This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on[REDACTED] treat new users. It's even more upsetting when something like above comes from one of the administrators of the website. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 09:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, for the record please list all the things that you are accusing me of here on this thread. That will also help me understand your concerns as they have been shifting quite frequently since we started this conversation. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 09:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 ÆCE didn't initiate any of those discussions. Three editors, none of whom agree with one another 100% told this editor that their content was inappropriate for inclusion.

I don't see any of these revisions been discussed before they were published, anywhere on the article's talk page, for consensual agreement. So, why now it's suddenly a problem in my case? I just followed what NedFausa, you, and others did. I also explained everything later with all the proofs for every single questions you and others had, but they were all denied without any consideration. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 11:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhea Chakraborty discussion

To anyone looking to mediate this dispute, I would also have a look at Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput#Biased Article! Suggestion. (Rhea Chakraborty is a person of interest in Rajput's death, and both the Death of... and biography articles have been slammed as of late with users unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages policies making unreasonable requests.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v 19:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition. On that page they will also find all the personal attacks made on me. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 21:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - I will make a few comments at this time, but am neither opening nor closing the case. The filing editor writes: 'Please have a look on my revisions on the page and all the conversations I had with both the mentioned users, and kindly decide whether or not my edits violated any of those policies.' The key policy here is the policy on biographies of living persons, and Misplaced Pages practice is that we avoid repeating unproven or unsubstantiated statements about living persons. It isn't enough for a reliable source to have said that third parties say that Rhea is a prime suspect. We don't need to repeat unproven statements, which would be churnalism. It appears that multiple editors have tried to advise the filing editor that they should not repeat unproven statements. So this is a one-against-many dispute, and mediation doesn't normally help with those. Also, the filing party claims that there have been personal attacks. I didn't see personal attacks, but this noticeboard doesn't normally do well with allegations that involve personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor writes: 'This is kind of upsetting how some of the users on[REDACTED] treat new users.' It appears that other editors, including an administrator, are trying to advise a new editor about BLP policy. That looks reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. Thank you so much for volunteering.

Note: With due respect, I'd like to answer the comments in segments as I have with others, I believe it makes thinks more clear and precise, especially in such conversations. I hope you don't mind.

The key policy here is the policy on biographies of living persons, and Misplaced Pages practice is that we avoid repeating unproven or unsubstantiated statements about living persons.  It isn't enough for a reliable source to have said that third parties say that Rhea is a prime suspect.  We don't need to repeat unproven statements, which would be churnalism.

Please watch this interview and this tweet of Subramanian Swamy who's an Indian politician, economist and statistician who serves as a nominated Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament. The the information regarding Rhea starts from 16:00 in the video. For more context, you may start watching from 9:00 as it is all promotions/advertisements before that. He's a high positioned member of Indian Central Government, under the supervision of which CBI including all other involved investigative agencies in the case work.

Also, the filing party claims that there have been personal attacks.  I didn't see personal attacks, but this noticeboard doesn't normally do well with allegations that involve personal attacks.  

I understand, which is why I didn't mention about it in my dispute overview until User:Jéské_Couriano made a comment here, whom I didn't even mention to be involved in this dispute.

I'd like to bring your attention to this comment from Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput#Biased_Article!_Suggestion:

I was, and am, calm. And once again, we go by what the sources are saying, and the sources are saying it's suicide. We do not, and should not, make such determinations ourselves, which is why we cite sources. Honestly, your arguments would be a lot better if you calmed down from your paroxysm and actually read the contents of this talk page and Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput; most everything you're saying has been addressed in one way or another on one or both of them. And the only reason the autopsy is under scrutiny is because of pressure from the family and hardcore fans who side with the family refusing to believe it's suicide (or at the very least, that there should be someone to blame, given the outsized focus of the family on Chakraborty as shown by multiple reliable sources).
"did you read what the CBI has said?" If you'd actually read the quoted section of the article instead of just reflexively being denialist you might realise that it makes clear the excerpt follows from the CBI's statement and isn't a non-sequitur to it, and again the article only ever mentions suicide in the headline (which is misleading as the excerpted portion directly contradicts it) and in a section regarding Chakraborty (in the form of discussing an abetment of suicide charge). I have already addressed the questioned section here and on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Please start reading talk pages instead of just yelling louder. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Paroxysm: a sudden attack or outburst of a particular emotion or activity: Where exactly I outbursted throughout the conversation?

Denlaist: a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: Where did I deny to accept anything that was said very initiallyabout the case? I only said that there has been new revelations which should also be mentioned in the article since they have so far nullified at least the "suicide" POV. None of the sources are calling it a straight up "suicide" showing the reports that were previously used as a proof.

Yelling louder Where did I do that?

As it's patently clear you're not reading what I'm actually writing (as I included the sources in my argument) it's also patently clear you're looking to win by attrition. We don't play that way. And again, no source has EXPLICITLY contradicted the suicide claim yet and several are reporting Chakraborty is being targeted for abetment of suicide, not murder. I suggest you start listening to what people are trying to say to you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Here, I'm being accused of playing games. For the record : I take someone's death and[REDACTED] very seriously. So, NO I am not playing any games here as I've also replied to this comment Talk:Death_of_Sushant_Singh_Rajput#Biased_Article!_Suggestion

This comment, made by User:Cyphoidbomb hereTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE :

I don't have time to answer all of this. We do not include potentially defamatory content, which is what you did when you added poorly-written content that heavily implied Chakraborty killed Rajput. That is egregiously bad judgment. You called her a "prime suspect", but didn't indicate what she was a prime suspect of. That ambiguity is very problematic. Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know. They are investigating complaints raised by the family. A journalist calling her a "prime suspect" without indicating what she was a prime suspect of, is bad journalism. Repeating that without providing sufficient context, is no better. While Misplaced Pages relies on what reputable secondary sources say, when they say things that are downright stupid or irresponsible, we are not obligated to include that. As for the rest of your response, feel free to read the entire Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput page, where some of your other questions have been asked and answered multiple times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

egregiously bad judgment: That was not my judgement or anyone else's for that matter. I only mentioned what the very sources currently cited for "commited suicide" has reported on their website.

Police have not charged her with any crime 'as far as I know

As far as you know?! You and others involved dispute discarded may sources including those that are currently in use in the articles itself but is it okay to go by what you know? Is there can't be a slight possibility that a person, might have missed something? Should we only consider something to be true only when you know about it, regardless of what's actually out there?

Please have a look at these: , not coming from any media this time but from a reputed member of the central government of India.

This one is fromTalk:Rhea_Chakraborty#Edit_warring_and_BLP_violation_by_User:ÆCE :

The only topic of discussion here is your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify. This is potentially defamatory content that you didn't bother to treat with the seriousness that it warrants, and you submitted it multiple times, even though it was disputed, and even though you were told that it violates our BLP policy. That's what we're discussing here. Do you not see that it is a problem to say "her boyfriend Shushant was found dead at his residence in Bandra ... with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case"? Do you truly not see the problem here? Do you not see what you are potentially implying that could be gravely defamatory? You can't call someone a suspect in a crime when you don't identify the crime. It's also just sloppy writing. You know about the Five Ws, don't you? And even if I put back the "The cause of death is still being investigated by CBI with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case" this doesn't sound odd to you? The CBI (according to you) doesn't know how he died, but Rhea is a suspect? What? That's ridiculous. Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, and if a bad journalist says something ignorant or poorly-conceived, we can opt not to publish that. That is an option, you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify" : False, I have Identified it to be true several times. As far as sloppy writing is concerned, I was not done with the editing which was interrupted by that first revert.

"It's also just sloppy writing.": I also said if you didn't find it up to the mark, please fix it or at least mark it for clean up like on other pages on[REDACTED] with writing or grammar issues, instead of reverting the entire revision. But, it was ignored.

Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, Here he is commenting on my common sense, even though It was not my opinion but what was being said by the sources that were currently used on the article for citations.

I've also mentioned that since there is an entire team of experts working on the case and still have not released any statement thus far, calling it a suicide OR murder, how can we or any news source declare it to be a suicide or "murder"? in response to the "common sense" comment.

"So newbie just copied the content and is hiding behind that as justification"

I only stated what I felt and many others will feel as I don't have a unique psychological response system. Calling a new user a "newbie" in this age is another way of saying what they call "noob" which is a disparaging word used for a new member, on any social forum/games/platforms on the internet these days. Also, I have been answering and providing all the citations for everything they challenged so I don't think it's fair to say that I'm Hiding behind anything here.

1. My main concern : Instead of being a part of all of this, why can't wikkipedia call it "found dead" instead of "committed suicide", at least for the time being until we hear from the experts themselves which both the sides are agreeing to accept?
3. If the article remains in a state as it is right know, unfortunately it IS being biased by declaring it a suicide citing indiatoday which now has withdrawn themselves from calling it a suicide.
5. I'm also willing to accept to have the involved articles deleted, until at least there is something we can add after the investigation is over.
7. The points I've made thus far can't be called "unsubstantial", and I strongly believe that the senior members who are volunteering in Dispute resolution would agree with me, at least in this regard.
9. I Never wanted to change it to "murder", I only wanted it to be changed to "found dead" (not going for either side).
11. Rhea Chakraborty is a "prime suspect" in Shushan's death case, which at this point can not be denied either. If anyone says something otherwise, they have not probably been keeping up with what's going on.
13. Misplaced Pages can not go for what an individual "know of" as facts and does "not know of" as hoax, disregarding what's actually happening.

♠ ÆCE | Talk | 02:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Be prepared for nobody to go through this text wall to address every point. The scope of this dispute resolution filing was the potentially defamatory content you added at Rhea Chakraborty. You can't file a dispute resolution case about a specific issue and then perpetually expand it. It is perplexing that you still don't understand why you can't call someone a suspect without quantifying what they are a suspect of. If you still can't understand this, and don't understand how your phrasing introduced content that could be inferred in a severely negative way that could be defamatory to Chakraborty, then I think it is very problematic for you to be editing biographies and I may explore whether you should be disallowed from editing articles related to Rajput, broadly construed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll take my chances here, thanks for the heads up. It was you guys who started from "sloppy writing" and kept shifting your concerns from there up to BLP violation, I was only answering your questions, explaining myself and providing all the citations that were asked from you all.

First off, please make it clear if it's about Rhea being a prime accuse or my edit changing "shushant committed suicide" to "shushant found dead" or "sloppy writing" or "lack of proper citation" or violation of BLP? because none of these were told about to me, at the same time, in fact they started coming up as I answered the previous ones from 3 different people who are basically "owning" the page because while they do warn other users from adding anything without seeking consent, they themselves have been adding a lot of things to the article without even discussing about the revisions they made before and in most cases even after they were published. Are administrators and their friends are exempted from seeking consensual agreement before adding anything to an article?

• 'You don't want to add about rhea being an accused, I'm fine with that but you must also change shushant "committed suicide" to "found dead" to balance the article. This way it will be neutral and[REDACTED] will also be kept out of any controversies or other mess surrounding it. '
• 'I've also proposed to 'delete the articles' until we hear from the experts working on the case which both the sides are willing to accept. '
• I do not see[REDACTED] to be under any compulsion to have these articles for the time being until we actually have something to write about after the investigation is over.

• These articles thus for only diminished the reputation of wikipedia, since the beginning and served no positive purpose at all what so ever.
• So I suggest to either make the article to be neutral or just delete them for now, which will ensure that[REDACTED] is neither favoring nor harming anyone.

♠ ÆCE | Talk |  05:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

For Robert McClenon and other Volunteers from User:ÆCE

Hi! I'd like to thank you once again for volunteering in my case. I believe I have said almost everything (well...apparently! haha!)I had to say regarding this and answered almost all the questions that were raised.

Tomorrow, I'm having surgery so unfortunately I won't be available here as I will be in post-op care for about a week. I was placed in the waiting list pretty low so I wasn't expecting that they'd call me so early. So, I'm leaving this matter in your experienced hands.

I'm willing to accept whatever you or other volunteers will decide. I'll try to come back as soon as I'll be allowed to.

Hoping to see you all soon!

Bye for now! :) -- ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 08:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@ÆCE: I hope your surgery goes well. I wish you a full and speedy recovery. NedFausa (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

this should probably be on the talk page. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jing Lee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs)
• Amigao (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have explained to the other user that including content on an organization in which the BLP has no demonstrable line of authority / leadership is a clear WP:COATRACK violation. I view the "important context" comment as facetious in light of a prior spurious and unsourced addition which I elaborated on here.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Discussion on user talk on that specific BLP

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

See above

Summary of dispute by Amigao

Jing Lee discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Summary of dispute by Call me when you get the chance

Summary of dispute by TomCat4680

I'm following MOS:NUMNOTES but he either wasn't aware of this rule or is simply refusing to follow it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Twenty-two or 22? discussion

Hello, please have an in-depth conversation before reporting it here, closing case. HeartGlow 06:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a dispute on Portal:Current events/2020 September 7 over whether numerals should or shouldn't start a sentence. This one user User:TomCat4680 is edit warring with me over the issue and this needs to be brought to your attention. Call me when you get the chance 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Read my latest edit summary: "per MOS:NUMNOTES: (very first one on the list): Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure: Use: There were many matches; 23 ended in a draw. Or: There were many matches. Twenty-three ended in a draw. NOT: There were many matches. 23 ended in a draw". TomCat4680 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, you started this dispute. The link led me to a TLDR page around here. Call me when you get the chance 06:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well there's the rule that proves my point. There's several other examples listed there but it basically says the same thing I've been trying to tell you the whole time. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• My page: Isla Blair. UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Photo page (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The photo of me on my Isla Blair page is NOT me but an actress called Sophie Louise Dann. I'd be grateful if it could be taken down and replaced by a photo of me!

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I don't know who to contact about the wrong photo being put up as me.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Put up a photo of me, Isla Blair, and not of Sophie Louise Dann!

Summary of dispute by Photo page

My page: Isla Blair. UK discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• José Luis Martínez-Almeida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sanitroni (talk · contribs)
• Asqueladd (talk · contribs)
• Praxidicae (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I put additional information that was not relevant (that he was not married) and some information that didn't meet exactly with the source cited, I also write a sentence that saw as biased, I corrected it whan he showed his concerns on the sentence in the talk and added a non-neutrality template, but when I asked him if we could remove the template, once I had corrected the sentence, he added an advert template on top of the previous one. I looked for assistance with some luck and I found that pointed out for me the other problems (sentimental situation of the individual and a bad writing in other section). I rewrited all the things so the template can be removed, but I do not know if Asqueladd would have more concerns. Can you, dear volunteer, take a look and tell me if it is okay now and the template can be removed?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:José Luis Martínez-Almeida

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Pointing out if there are more problems in the writing that can be perceived as biased and, if there aren't or they are corrected, saying so in the talk page so Asqueladd can see everything is OK and this is not a group of friends trying to promote the subject.

Summary of dispute by Asqueladd

Summary of dispute by Praxidicae

José Luis Martínez-Almeida discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Misplaced Pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The author or authors of the article on Patanjali (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dear Dispute Resolution Board Members, To the right side of the article on Patanjali in Misplaced Pages there is a summary description box attached with the Heading "Hindu Philosophy". Sir, this is incorrect. I suggest it be renamed as "Indian" Philosophy which encompasses the 3 main non-revealed religions of the world that originated from India or Bharat - namely, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. To name them all under the category "Hindu Philosophy" is totally wrong. All three mentioned have derived their thinking and discussions from Vedic and Upanishadic texts and brought out individual contributions like "Bhagavad Gita" (Hinduism), Buddhist Sutras (originating from Buddha) and Jaina scrpiptures (sourced to Mahavira). The reason why this is important is that the current Indian government and its supporting party BJP want to project the image of India solely as a "Hindu Nation". India houses all the 3 religions mentioned above as much as the philosophies they represent. Indian philosophy encompasses all and is more than just Hindu scriptures and thought.

George Chakko, former U.N.correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria. I hold a Master's degree each in both Indian and Western Philosophies (University of Madras and University of Bonn, Germany. In India I studied Indian Philosophy under late Professor and Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in Philosophy, Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, a renowned Shankara and Vedanta scholar, under University of Madras in Chennai, India. Vienna, 09/09/2020 09:52 am CSET email: gchakko@gmail.com

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

My email: gchakko@gmail.com Tel: 0043-1-9165167 (Landline) Mob: 0677-616-30657

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Just change the heading from Hindu Philosophy to Indian Philosophy, that' all. Thank you George Chakko

Summary of dispute by The author or authors of the article on Patanjali

Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Misplaced Pages discussion

@77.118.253.10: Where is the dispute? I see nothing on the Talk page that merits this approach? Deb (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (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.