Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:55, 20 July 2019 editSuper ninja2 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,502 edits →Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:51, 22 January 2025 edit undoSkeptical1800 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,339 edits →First statement by volunteer (Urartu): TyposTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}		\|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage\|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = ~~177~~		\|counter = 254
	\|minthreadsleft = 1		\|minthreadsleft = 1
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(72h)
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{clear\|left}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index\|mask=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=no}}

	<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. -->
			__TOC__
			{{clear}}

	=Current disputes=		=Current disputes=

	== William Lane Craig ==
			== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) ==

	{{DR case status\|open}}		{{DR case status\|open}}
	<!-- ] 16:53, 18 ~~July~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|~~1561481632~~}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->		<!-- ] 19:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1738093151}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|~~Squatch347~~\|16:53, 11 ~~June~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)}}		{{drn filing editor\|Abo Yemen\|19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|William Lane Craig}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|Squatch347}}
	* {{User\|Theroadislong}}
	* {{User\|ජපස}}
	* {{User\|GretLomborg}}
	* {{User\|Bill the Cat 7}}
	* {{User\|Hob Gadling}}
	* {{User\|PaleoNeonate}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">

	{{collapse top\|Collapsing all previous discussion and comments about dispute, I've read through it. Let's start with a clean slate. Steven Crossin 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)}}

	'''Dispute overview'''</span>

	These disputes started initially with the removal of a long standing quote on the William Lane Craig page. This was a quote and topic that had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years. It became a hotbed issue for a number of editors and resulted in changes being made to the page absent discussion on Talk or consensus. In the last few days it has attracted a number of new editors who have begun removing whole sections of the page absent any discussion on the talk page or clear wiki policy supporting the change.

	I have little confidence given the emotion and POV level on the talk page that a rational discussion of these edits will occur. I think a return to status quo ante (say 20 may or so) would be a good place to start discussion on proposed changes.

	I should highlight that there is no current "no changes allowed' type arguments here, the request has been for discussion on talk prior to removal of long-standing and repeatedly agreed to content.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

	I have proposed three different suggested text changes to the relevant sections and proposed criteria for the removal of some content as recommended by editors. I have supported removal of several sections for streamlining and published relevant secondary sources when asked. Finally, I've been prompt and courteous in responding to requested changes on the talk page and not escalated discussion with personal attacks, but rather ignored several personal attacks and derogatory comments.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

	I believe an emphasis on collaborative editing and a reminder of the wiki policies around biographies by Admins would help calm down the topic a bit. The debate appears to focus more on individual editors' attitudes toward the biography's subject than objective editing, so some monitoring of those edits would help as well.

	Update: As ] prepares to evaluate this case I'd like to update this requested assistance section to be more in line with where, I think, the discussion has evolved to and what the primary matters of contention are. I would propose this as my summary of the issue at hand (specifically the second paragraph onward). The difference seems to be that some editors feel that any discussion of any topic, even in included in a ], that isn't fully confined to their conception of philosophy should not be included. The question comes down to, if a topic is published by a reputable source, should we be the arbiters of whether it is "vetted" or not?

	Secondarily, I think mediation can help us work through the points proposed by as points of consensus :
	# William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist.
	# ] and ] are not ].
	# The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories.
	# The article ] is not a science article.
	# '''The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work.''' Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers.
	# The article ] is a biography.
	# It is right and proper to directly attribute ]'s thoughts to himself in his biography.
	# As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article ] should cover his thought. Examining the ] from the Task Force]], this is common practice (e.g. ], ], and ]).
	# None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, ''in his biography'' because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." '''In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong'''.
	# The standard of inclusion of ]'s philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be ''attributed to him'' based on ], keeping in mind ] and ]. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the ] article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support.
	# It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of ] in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis.

	] (]) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Summary of dispute by Theroadislong
	<div style="font-size:smaller">The article has been in a VERY poor state for some time, with far too much unsourced or primary sourced POV trumpery. All attempts to remove this have been reverted. This would be a good place to start again as suggested by ]. ] (]) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)</div>

	;Summary of dispute by ජපස
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	I reject this dispute resolution as the summary is not written neutrally. If the proposer would rewrite it ], I will consider undergoing dispute resolution. ] (]) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Summary of dispute by GretLomborg

	I got involved with this article when I noticed nearly every sentence in a basic biographical section was being challenged as "{{citation needed}}". Many of those facts were already sourced and easily verified in nearby references (sometimes ones even attached to the same sentence). I thought that was odd, so I spent a little time adding relatively easily found references for things like degrees held, etc. I've since been watching the page, and have seen this dispute unfold. My involvement has been limited to some clarifying comments on the talk page, and some reversions of a couple large deletions (one of nearly the entire article content).

	The article's subject appears to work extensively in atheism/theism debates, and that's a recipe for conflict as we're seeing now. It appears that some editors object to the subject's ideas , and are attempting to excise as much article content as they possibly can, sometimes using spurious Misplaced Pages policy arguments to do so, or by claiming that sources don't support it without making a serious attempt at verification. I think that, despite whatever anyone thinks of the article's subject or his ideas, they should be summarized and represented neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely in his own biography article.

	{{hat\|Comment on content, not contributors. ] (]) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)}}
	After doing some research, it appears that one of the most disruptive editors in this dispute ]/jps has previously been topic-banned from a topic that he probably considers similar to the one of this article (see ). He is being ] and aggressive by being snarky and sarcastic with other editors whom he opposes and not ] (see ). His behavior on this article may be a reprise of his previous problematic behavior. - ] (]) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
	{{hab}}
	'''Update''': As of now , pretty much ''every sentence'' of the intro, biography, and career sections has one ''or more'' supporting cites to either a secondary source or a ]-acceptable source. This includes sections other editors wanted to ]. Other sections that were proposed to be ]'d appear to have ''always'' had support via secondary sources in ]s (e.g. the ]'s page on the ), and I suspect that most if not all of the gaps can be filled in with secondary citations to academic book reviews in theology or philosophy journals, though some of those may only be available in print. I appeal to all the editors involved to make a good-faith efforts to find secondary sources and add inline citations. - ] (]) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

	'''Update 2''': tl;dr: This dispute has been very fast moving, and I think we're past the ] stage. However I think it's still necessary to emphasize that in the biography of a philosopher/theologian, the subject's ideas should be summarized neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely. Even if every fiber of an editor's body is opposed to those ideas and their whole field of study, ] and ] mean they should still be included, and ] means theological and Christian sources are acceptable, at least to outline the subject's views and reactions to them within that part of his academic community. - ] (]) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

	Overall, I agree with Squatch347. The problem would half solved if we just removed the accusation of genocide. One person unjustifiably accusing another person of supporting genocide because they got their panties in a bunch is irrelevant, not noteworthy, and it just doesn't belong in a BLP. ] (]) 22:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
	It is easy to find out that the claim that the topic "had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years" is simply not true. There was never a consensus, there were always the same two sides, with various representatives, and the discussion just stopped in each case without anybody changing their stance. There are some users, like the filing editor, who want to keep every inappropriate part of the article that makes the person Craig look good and his opponents look bad, and who achieved that in every case by sheer persistence and by misrepresentation, instead of valid reasoning. For some reason, all except two of the recent editors who were anti-Came-quote (Theroadislong and ජපස) have not have not been notified here: ], ], ] and me. --] (]) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Summary of dispute by PaleoNeonate
	I am not used to DRN but have promised to look at the article so am offering my assessment. Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. —]] – 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Note by Drmies
	This article, after the most recent revert by GrettLomborg, is in a terrible condition. jps's cleanup made sense to me. However, if jps wants this to be resolved, he should probably refrain from posting unacceptable personal attacks like . ] (]) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

	=== William Lane Craig discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. ] (]) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
	:Apologies, I thought the template notified them. I have updated everyone now. ] (]) 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - The filing editor has notified some but not all of the editors. ] (]) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - I will try in the next 24 hours to open this case for moderated discussion, but first:
	***Stop editing the article.
	***Stop the personal attacks.
	***Read ], although I have not yet started moderated discussion.
	***Stop editing the article.
	***Stop the personal attacks.
	] (]) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
	;First statement by moderator
	I will try to moderate this discussion, at least for a little while. The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read ], and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Both civility and conciseness have been in short supply on this article. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not useful. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors.

	Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article?

	] (]) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

	;First statements by editors
	My proposal for article improvement would involve two major areas of focus. 1) Review of the section currently called "Apologetics" to reflect areas of Apologetic positions and philosophical works. The goal of this would be to make the page more consistent with other philosophers' pages. See ] or ] for example. In that effort each major section should be made concise, covering primarily a brief summary of the position, its notable points, and notable publications on the topic. 2) Referencing notability, a table of public debates and notable talks should be included. This is the main source of Craig's non-professional notability and warrants reference. The table should include; participants, topics, locations, notes. - ] (]) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) {{small\|'''Note:''' I copied Squatch347's sig up here to maintain readable attribution, as the latter half of his comment was rearranged to be at the bottom. - ] (]) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC) }}

	The article can be improved by looking for third-party independent sources which discuss Craig's ideas and only including an explanation of the ideas about which third-party independent sources have commented. Furthermore, when an idea of Craig's is in the purview of a particular epistemic community (say, science, for example), the only third-party independent sources which should count are those which are produced by members of that community (say, scientists, for example). If there are no sources which comment upon a particular idea of Craig's from the relevant epistemic community, we should not include the idea in the article. ] (]) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

	I think the article can be improved by fleshing out the "Apologetics" section (once more-neutrally labeled "Research" prior to this dispute) to give an appropriately complete account of the subject's thought and work. That is what's best for the readers of the encyclopedia and the article. Other content goals may take priority on other parts of Misplaced Pages, but not in a biography. The subject is clearly notable as a philosopher and theologian ( for a few examples), and per ], it's inappropriate force the article content of his biography to be subject to further notability evaluation. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to require some other field (e.g. physics) to validate the subject's thoughts and views in order to include them in his biography: if they can be verifiably attributed to him, they should be ''permitted'' to be included, regardless or whether they are correct or incorrect in the judgement of some editor. They're his thoughts, and one reads his biography to learn about them. I think this is the core issue, there are smaller implementation details that I won't get into now. - ] (]) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


	:A small note to the other editors here and the moderator. I will be offline as part of the national guard until 30 June. No issue with continuing resolution without me in the meantime of course, but I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them if questions or concerns came up. Sorry for the delay. ] (]) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Second Statement by Moderator
	Okay. I had meant to ask each editor to give specifics about what they want changed in the article, and so I will do that now. However, here is a summary of what the editors have said:
	:1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.
	:2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.
	:3. Look for independent third-party sources.
	:4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)

	Will each editor please comment on those four points briefly?

	Comments about what should not be included are not helpful unless they request to omit something in particular that is in the article.

	Will each editor please list one or two specific changes that they think should be made to the article?

	] (]) 19:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
	;Second Statements by Editors

	1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.
	:Rework? Yes. Rename it "research"? No. That's a POV-push. ] (]) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
	2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.
	:I see no purpose to this. ].
	3. Look for independent third-party sources.
	:The most important thing we can do. These sources should be organized by their levels of independence and they should be ''from the relevant epistemic communities'' if they are talking about Craig's specific ideas.
	4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)
	:No. ] is not a good game to play.
	] (]) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

	1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research
	:NO.
	2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.
	:NO.
	3. Look for independent third-party sources.
	:YES the article still needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from independent reliable secondary sources. On 12th June, out of the 124 sources, 71 were primary sources to his own book or website, this is not acceptable.
	4. NO ]. ] (]) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

	# Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research
	#: If "apologetics" is challenged, possibly that "views" may suit. Research suggests serious (possibly scientific) research and would be misleading.
	# Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks
	#: Per ], instead of a table, if some have particular notability they should be mentioned.
	# Look for independent third-party sources
	#: Absolutely, work about that already started.
	# Compare to the Platinga article
	#: The other article may itself need work, ] indeed applies. However, ] and ] are more useful. —]] – 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

	# Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research
	#: Yes rework, but from a starting point closer to the pre-dispute version () than current version.
	#: I personally think the section should be named something along the lines of "Philosophy and Theology." "Research" is ok (it's not an activity limited to science and science-like activities), but I don't prefer it.
	# Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks
	#: That seems like too much detail to me.
	# Look for independent third-party sources
	#: Yes, but in compliance with ] and understanding that ].
	# Compare to the Platinga article
	#: Yes, and perhaps others. ].
	: - ] (]) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Third Statement by Moderator
	One editor proposed four points of work. Those four points have been rejected, so we will not go there. I would like to thank ]. Proposing four changes that other editors don't want was useful. Now we have narrowed the field of changes.

	Now, will each editor please identify one or two proposed changes that should be made to the article? List changes that have not already been discussed and that other editors can agree with or disagree with.

	;Third Statements by Editors

	Note to moderator: the previous proposals were made by ], not me. I tried to fix a sig problem with his comments, which may be the source of the confusion. I also think the second round was closed before one side of the dispute could comment (as ] is on vacation and I didn't see the updates until now).

	Here are some news proposals:

	# Re-integrate recently-removed content back into the article from the pre-dispute version , so that any issues with it can be discussed in this process. Per ] "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit," (the matters here aren't "] matters related to ]", e.g. "John Doe is a racist axe-murderer"). If we can't do that, I think this process will have difficulties resolving the dispute.
	# Since it's universally agreed that the article would benefit from more secondary sources. Editors in this dispute should find secondary-source support for at least one sentence in the article that needs it. I've been doing this, and it isn't too hard. - ] (]) 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

	New proposal:

	#] the article and start writing only using third-party independent sources. Sources written by Craig and his acolytes can be worked in later.

	] (]) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Fourth Statement by Moderator
	First, I apologize for having misread the authorship of certain comments.

	Second, since some of the suggestions were made by an editor who is on temporary military duty, I will put this dispute on hold until the end of the month.

	Third, there have been suggestions that the article be stubbified and rewritten from scratch. If a consensus of the editors agree, I will close this dispute with a resolution to stubbify the article.

	Fourth, if there is a non-consensus, where at least two editors holding one opinion and at least two editors holding another opinion is a non-consensus, then we will either have to fail this dispute or formulate an RFC, and I would prefer an RFC.

	Fifth, within the next week (not 48 hours, due to military leave hold), any editor may propose any change that can be put into an RFC, or can make any recommendations for changes to the article.
	] (]) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Back-and-Forth by Editors

	Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, ], would disagree with the proposal to ]. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Misplaced Pages immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

	I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or ] the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely ''accurately represents Craig's views'' and the actual level of ] was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to ] is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

	As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

	* Is the purpose of a ''biography'' of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

	- ] (]) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

	Hi there, I just noticed this page. I would oppose WP:TNT. I don't see that the article is too puffy. It points out that he's been accused of defending genocide, for example. However, I do think that more of the critical reaction to his views could be worked in; it is not hard to find since he debates bazillions of people who criticize him. I think it would be good if such material could be worked into the actual discussion of his views, rather than being in a "reception" section. I also think that Craig comes off in the article as purely an apologist, when in fact he has done work on theology that is not apologetic in nature (e.g., his work on the doctrine of the Trinity), and he has made general contributions to philosophy of time and the topic of Platonism that aren't specifically religious. All that gets lost in the current article, and that gives the reader a wrong idea about the scope of his work. ] (]) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
	:The article as it is currently written is a marked improvement over what it was. I believe, but am not certain, that GretLomborg and Squatch347 would like to move it back towards the direction of being an exposition of Craig's treatises rather than an attempt to tease out which of his ideas have received third-party reception. As you point out, it should not be hard to find critical reaction to Craig, but the problem has been that although I have tried, it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources (and, indeed, there has been some pushback as to whether this is really the most important thing we can do right now). ] is offered by me as an alternative, but I would much rather engage with source gathering, TBH. I can tolerate ]. I will not abide by whitewashing. ] (]) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
	::Agree with jps. Returning to the old hagiography is not what we should do. TNT or adding third-party sources. Any new non-apologetic stuff should be sourced to other people too. If such sources do not exist, if it is not important enough for anybody else, then it is obviously not important enough to include here. --] (]) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
	:::What, specifically, was "hagiography" in the previous version? ] (]) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
	::::Maybe my assessment at the top could be useful to understand, —]] – 21:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
	:::::It wasn't hagiography; most of what was there was accurate. It should not use primary sources, but I think everyone obviously agrees with that, since that's basic WP policy. But Craig is mentioned 90 times in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the cosmological argument, so we can say as much about his view as we like with that as a source. Some of the stuff from the earlier version was unsourced, such as his view on inflation, and unless sources can be found that should come out of course. ] (]) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Calling the pre-dispute version a hagiography is an extreme exaggeration, and such exaggerations are very counterproductive. Also, I do not think these statement sections are meant to be discussion forums. - ] (]) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
	::I agree to accumulating more third party sources. Jps had already presented some, I added a few more today and intend to add a few more tomorrow. —]] – 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

	{{ping\|‎PaleoNeonate}} I believe that this is the section that was set aside for back-and-forth discussion, so I'm going to reply to you here.

	I want to be clear that I'm absolutely agreeing that we should not be relying on primary sources. We should instead rely on the best expert discussion we can find, and that's not popular-level stuff. The experts on his scholarly work are other experts who have summarized and commented on it. There's no reason we cannot use those sources. JSTOR alone has over 500 search results for his name. Scores and scores of book reviews will provide professional summaries of those books. Scores of critical articles will provide reactions to his work. There's no need for OR ''on Craig'' or Synth ''of Craig's work''. But we do have to summarize the best possible sources, and those are scholarly sources, which are overwhelmingly abundant in this case. Popular-level material is much, much less reliable.

	As for detail, I don't really understand how there could be too much detail about the subject of the article. I mean, if relevant info is in RS, why shouldn't we use it? The more well-documented info the better, it seems to me. But I'm open to hearing why this is not the right approach. Can you say what you're worried about with "too much detail" assuming that the detail is in RS? ] (]) 01:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

	:You're right about this section, thanks. The moderator may of course move my comment (and even restructure it if needed). —]] – 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
	:Adding: it's mostly a question of accessibility and weight (with tertiary sources also a good guide there). ] is also relevant, as well as ]. A third party reader with high-school or college level education should be able to have a good idea of the main topic in a few minutes; the sources and/or linked subarticles are extra-material if they need more. If we also consider avoidance of ] where relevant, there's no need to have extended pro/con material all along... —]] – 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
	::One more thing: is there somewhere in RS that his views (all of his views? some of them?) are called pseudoscience? Because, if not, it's really not helpful for editors to keep saying or implying that, and it seems to me like a violation of WP:BLP.
	::I agree that we don't want everything on his CV, and that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But his work has received a ''tremendous'' amount of attention from scholars in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theology. I believe that we should include all details of his work that have been discussed at the highest levels within his field. There's no reason we can't summarize those sources at an appropriate level for the general reader. ] (]) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Fifth Statement by Moderator
	The rules say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, because it hasn't worked before this dispute was brought here. Read ] again. However, continue the back-and-forth discussion above. Since there is a desire for back-and-forth, do it in the area provided, and the Q-and-A can continue separately.

	Below, restate whether and why or why not the article should be stubbified and then rebuilt.

	Also below, provide any proposed changes that should be the subject of an RFC.

	There is agreement to find more third-party sources. If you can do it, that will help.
	] (]) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Fifth Statements by Editors

	Repeated from above:

	Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, ], would disagree with the proposal to ]. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Misplaced Pages immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

	I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or ] the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely ''accurately represents Craig's views'' and the actual level of ] was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to ] is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

	As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

	* Is the purpose of a ''biography'' of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

	- ] (]) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

	I oppose TNT or stubify for the following main reason: it won't solve any of the problems. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of the article, and, corresponding to this, a disagreement about appropriate sources. There's obviously a range of options with respect to how much detail we will go into in summarizing Craig's views. There is also a range of options with respect to how much reaction (including critical reaction) we should summarize. Third party reliable sources can and should be found for both of those projects, but we need to decide what sources are appropriate, and how much detail we want. Those problems will immediately afflict the attempt to rebuild the page. Here's my view on these issues. First, it makes sense to focus on the subject of the article, i.e., Craig, rather than his critics. I think we should go into his views in whatever detail is possible with available high-quality sourcing. Second, it also makes sense to include (more briefly) a summary of reactions, including critical reactions, at the end of our summaries of each of his views. Third, I would propose that we focus attention on academic sources that comment on his work. There are plenty of these, and they are going to be the highest quality sources. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. ] (]) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

	I have no opinion about TNT, other than that technically it would allow to establish a new plan from scratch, possibly through extensive work and consensus. It seems that we were now told that we could reply to eachother before the next round? If so: {{tqqi\|should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?}} Probably not suppressed, but whenever claims of someone notable touch pseudoscience it is unevitable to find relevant (and appropriate) criticism or commentary, in which case ], ] also apply. {{tqqi\|So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics.}} The danger here is ] and ] using primary sources, where tertiary sources like other encyclopedias or third party reviews can be very useful to establish what should have weight, etc. {{tqqi\|should go into his views in whatever detail is possible}} too much details may return to the point where the article did appear to need ]. But here again, possibly that analysis of other tertiary sources will help for guidance (]). I listed a few secondary and tertiary sources at the article's talk page recently. There probably are more, those are in material I'm familiar with and have easy access to. If the epistemic community is philosophy, there may be more relevant encyclopedias of philosophy for reference. This is probably also true for theology. On the other hand, arguments like Kalam venture into wild territory... Philosophy is like math: symbols can be used to describe anything the mind could conceive; whenever something interacts with known reality (outside of the mind), some become hypotheses that may be tested or questioned. This is also a theologian who insisted on meeting key people in their field like Krauss, in attempt to gain extra legitimacy. —]] – 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Sixth Statement by Moderator
	I have extended the time for this discussion to 11 July. (The bot archived this discussion, and I have unarchived it because I don't think it is finished.) If the editors think that it will take longer than that, please so state. This noticeboard is intended primarily for disputes that take no longer than two to three weeks to resolve.

	I see that there is disagreement as to whether to stubbify the article and start over. In that case, I would suggest that each editor who thinks that the article contains ] or ] stuff identify paragraphs that they propose be deleted and we will put those to RFC.

	Do any editors have any other specific suggestions for improvements to the article? (Specific means specific.)

	Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the space for back-and-forth discussion.

	] (]) 16:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
	;Sixth Statements by Editors

	I do not think there is any true puffery in the article to be removed. Even the pre-dispute version was very light on adjectives of any kind, let alone puffy ones.

	It needs to be made absolutely clear that ] and ] (a.k.a. ]) '''don't''' apply to this biography article. Theology and philosophy are in fact their own mainstream fields, regardless if any editor wishes they weren't or has more affinity to another field. Craig's work is well within those fields (e.g. to the point that he's published and his work has gotten much commentary in mainstream philosophy journals, and seems quite active and well cited in the sub-field of philosophy of religion).

	As for specific improvement proposals:
	# The headers should be removed or significantly trimmed down. Some are no longer relevant, and others were most likely inapplicable even when they were added (e.g. logic behind the "the factual accuracy" one seems to be taking issue with Craig himself, not with the accuracy of the biography article itself). In any case, the rational for each of them needs to be justified, in detail.
	# The section that was recently re-titled "Apologetics" should be again re-titled with less POV, something along the lines of "Theological and Philosophical Work" is probably best. It's descriptive and broad enough to encompass Craig's academic activity.

	There are other, more general improvement proposals that I think should be implemented, but will not go into them because the request was for specific ones.

	- ] (]) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Seventh Statement by Moderator
	I wrote: " The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read ], and comply with the rules." What part of that is there an excuse for not complying with? I meant not to edit the article while discussion is in progress.

	I will be giving all of the editors of the Craig article a ] ] warning. This is the last warning.

	Resume responding to my questions either in the Sixth section or the Seventh section; it doesn't matter which. ] (]) 23:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

	;Seventh Statements by Editors

	I agree with everything {{u\|GretLomborg}} said above. I also strongly support everything in the moderator's last statement. I have made these suggestions: (i) replace primary source references with third-party sources, (ii) all the third-party sources should be professional, academic work, not popular level work, (iii) as much of the pre-dispute version as possible consistent with the first two suggestions should be restored. Perhaps this is not specific enough. If it isn't specific enough, let me look at the section on the Cosmological Argument. In the current version of that section, almost all of the sourcing is good, except for a single primary source reference to Craig (1992). I would support removing that primary source reference, which is gratuitous anyway in the current version. The pre-dispute version had a lot more primary-source material, so it's good that most of that has been removed. However, I would specifically propose reinstating any content from that pre-dispute version--and especially a statement of the Kalam argument itself--that can be sourced in professional academic commentary on Craig's work. The Stanford Encyclopedia, and specifically their article on the Cosmological Argument, is an excellent source for this, and would serve as a source for his version of the argument, and probably more. Nobody can reasonably disparage the SEP: it is funded by NEH and NSF grants, it is published by one of the world's premiere philosophy departments (Stanford), and it publishes ''blind-reviewed'' articles. It is absurd to disparage this as a source; the quality of sourcing for our philosophy articles could not get any higher. ] (]) 23:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

	*I am concerned that the moderator is not unbiased. I have expressed my concerns on his talkpage. ] (]) 00:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	*The existence of this ] is ''prima facie'' evidence that the user who made it is not participating in this dispute resolution in good faith. ] (]) 00:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	*I also note that as of this timestamp, the moderator has only tagged my user page with the discretionary sanctions notification and has not tagged any other participant's page. This seems to be further evidence that the moderator may be compromised in his position here. ] (]) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{collapse bottom}}

	=== William Lane Craig discussion - take 2 ===
	:Alright, I'm a volunteer here and I'm going to reopen this one and take it on board myself. I've collapsed all previous discussion and I will be sending a message to all that have contributed here to ensure that you're all still willing to participate. A bit about me - I've been doing sporadic dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages for about ten years, so I've done this sort of thing before. I don't have any formal ground rules, nor will I expect editors to comment in a structured way (my style is a little different to some others here, but that's just how I roll).

	:I do expect everyone here to stay on topic, be as concise as possible, and be polite to each other. I will generally guide the discussion amongst you, and make both suggestions and give directions based on Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. If each editor can confirm they would still like to participate in this discussion, we will proceed from there. The only rule I do have is that I ask the article is ]. We will work on the article issues until they are resolved. Sound good. Let's get started with a comment from each editor first please. '''I'll check this page in 12 hours to see who has commented - for now, please just indicate willingness to proceed and no more. Thanks''' <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 15:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

	:Just checking in - still see a few editors I’m awaiting a response on. I’ll give things until tomorrow morning my time (about another 12 hours or so) and then I’ll start framing the discussion from here. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 10:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
	:Alright, fantastic, that’s everyone I think. My timezone is a little odd (I’m in Australia but often operate on US eastern time). I’ll open up initial discussion in a few hours. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 17:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

	;Confirmation from editors that you are willing to proceed
	* I'd be happy to participate. Thanks for your help. ] (]) 16:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes. ] (]) 16:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I accept. I would like to try this again. ] (]) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	* No thanks. Good luck to you people. --] (]) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes. ] (]) 09:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Absolutely, looking forward to moving this forward, thank you. ] (]) 13:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I am tentatively willing to proceed with another round of this. - ] (]) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Let's try, —]] – 17:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Beginning of discussion====
	OK, thank you to everyone for your patience. I've been reading through the article as well as some previous revisions. I'd like to start with a brief yardstick check - can each of you please tell me, in less than 100 words, which version of the article, in it's history, you feel is most "correct" - a starting point that we can work from (and provide a link to that revision). If you think there isn't a version that is a suitable starting point for progress, please state that, along with a very brief explanation of what you think needs to be addressed in the article going forward to get to a starting point.

	I also note that numerous sources in the article are books - if links to these texts are known by editors and could be provided here, that would be of benefit as well. I appreciate that some of this discussion has happened before, but as I noted, I feel it's best we start off fresh and go from there. No need for the discussion below to be overwhelmingly structured, just keep it brief and for now, please try limit the back and forth - there will be time for that later. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 17:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

	*I'm having a hard time coming to terms with a decent starting point. I'm willing to go with the current version, but think there are lots of problems with the current version. Previous versions were worse. What we need to do is explain which ideas of Craig's have been noticed by others -- ideas that relate to science noticed by scientists, ideas that relate to philosophy noticed by philosophers, and ideas that relate to theologian noticed by theologians. ] (]) 18:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I think that from just prior to the current disputes isn't perfect, but it's probably the best starting point for this discussion per ]. I'm no expert on Craig, but based on my research during this dispute, my sense is it's substantially accurate with regard to him and the content of his work, which should be the focus of his biography. More recent revisions have sourcing and other improvements that should be kept, but the dispute has been too tumultuous to work from one of those revisions. - ] (]) 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I agree with GretLomborg that is our best starting point. We should replace primary sources with high-quality independent sources, add some high-quality critical reaction, and trim out any stuff that can only be found in primary sources. By "high-quality" here I mean scholarly publications authored by experts and subjected to blind review. ] (]) 22:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I support the same version as a good starting point . With that said, there has been some good work done and I would include some of the diffs made later as improvements that clarify the article such as, and for starters. This version would be the best starting place because it will be far easier to include the later diffs we can gain consensus on based on a shared understanding of goals and policy rather than having to tease out those edits from a later version. ] (]) 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I think all revisions have problems, but find that improvements were made ({{diff\|William_Lane_Craig\|904361813\|898601037\|difference of old revision with the current one}}). As such I would prefer to go with the current revision, but as this diff demonstrates no information from previous revisions is lost. The original was too long and seemingly from a fan perspective. Also pinging {{u\|Theroadislong}} who seems to be another participant. Adding: Articles may remain a long time with problems without attention. ] is how the article recently came back to attention. —]] – 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I can't find a good starting point version without going back about 12 years, so reluctantly agree to start with the current version, as nuking doesn't appear to be an option. There are far too many primary sources, 70 at last count. ] (]) 19:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

	*I agree with GretLomborg. ] (]) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

	:Thanks for your comments so far, I'm starting to see a possible starting point suggested by a few of you. {{ping\|PaleoNeonate}}, {{ping\|Bill the Cat 7}}, could you chime in on the question I have asked above. After they've commented, we will likely proceed by going through the version of the article that has the most consensus as a starting point among you, and then I will suggest that we go through the article section by section, discussing each and working on the article content until we reach a version of the article that has a consensus supported by policy. I will also guide that discussion and weigh applicable policies and guidelines when we determine the content of the article, so there may well be times where the "correct" outcome is not one that is supported by a majority. But we will get there! <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 17:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

	:That's almost everyone. As consensus seems to be split rather evenly on a starting point, I'll take a look through both proposed versions of the article and weigh each on its merits, in line with the Manual of Style, and various other policies and guidelines. This should not be taken as an endorsement of the content in that revision, merely my assessment on the best starting point based on Misplaced Pages policy (since after all, that is the real decider here). Will comment shortly and then we will break up sections and proceed from there. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 19:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Section Break====
	Alright everyone, thanks for your patience while I've reviewed the discussion here and both proposed versions of the article as starting points. As I noted, since opinions on the starting point for our progress moving forward was split, I have assessed and made a recommendation on the version that we would work off. After review, I've determined that the best version to start off would be the article in it's current version.

	My rationale for this is as follows - while the fact that the current version of the article was noted as not having universal consensus, most of you who supported the alternate version noted that improvements have been made in later versions that should be retained, in particular, improvements to referencing in the article. With ] being one of our core policies, I am minded to work on the current, more referenced version. I have weighed other policies in recommending this starting point, specifically our policies on use of ], ] and ] (specifically, undue weight) - very briefly, primary and self-published sources are OK up to a point, however they should not be the sole source or predominant source in an article. This is a secondary consideration at this stage, however.

	The ] will guide us here. While we need to be careful to not ], it would be useful to identify a few articles on other philosophers that have a similar article structure that we can use as a yardstick. If suggestions could be made below, I will review them (they need to be a "]" or better, however).

	Lastly, I note that this recommendation is not necessarily an endorsement of the current article version, or overwhelming criticism of the alternate, however a weighed decision based on a review of the two versions and your comments here noting improvements made since the dispute started. Content that was previously in the article that has been removed can be re-included after a discussion here, if deemed appropriate.

	<u>How will we proceed from here?</u>: We will break the article up section by section. I will post a section below, and we will discuss whether there is unanimous agreement for the content in the section, as is. If there is, great, we will move on to the next section. If there is disagreement, I will guide a collaboration on the content, using ]. It will allow us to identify the current version, and work on proposed alternate text until a version is reached that is agreed to, that is supported by our policies, guidelines, and styles. At times, I will of course interject with comments regarding appropriateness of content based on these policies, but it will largely from here be a relatively collaborative discussion process. I'll give a few hours for comments, and then I will start with posting the lead section of the article here for review and work by all editors.

	For the time being (and this will be the format for the discussion on each section of the article), can each editor advise '''whether there is content in the article infobox that you disagree with''' (and if so, very briefly - What do you disagree with, Why, and What is your alternative text (with sources provided).

	Finally, over the course of this discussion, I reserve the right to re-structure comments for readability purposes, but the content of your edit will remain (however, if discussion is getting too long, I may ask you to trim things down for ease of readability. Thanks everyone, let's proceed. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 19:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Sources====
	Hi all. This is just a request for links to sources - specifically links to any books that are cited in the article, if they are available, for verifiability purposes. (I assume most of you have seen electronic or physical copies of some of these books, so this request is mainly for my benefit. Just a URL link below is fine, cheers. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 22:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

	*First source goes here.
	*
	* ,
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	* <!-- I've focused only on the books, and stopped short of including research articles and popular articles. Stopped at reference #66 on the BLP -Approaching -->
	* Craig's view of Apollinarianism: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Book)
	<hr />
	* ], the above list should only include sources currently used in the article, but links to source propositions at the article talk page may be posted here. Here are two collections that I remember: ], ]. —]] – 01:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
	:*Most specifically, links to books. Not interested in websites/online news etc - this section is about granting easier access to cited books so all can review the content of the cited works (most importantly in this instance, myself). <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 01:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
	:: Did you specifically want a google books link, so you could read the sources themselves? It wasn't obvious to me. If that's what you'd like, I'll try and do that. ] (]) 22:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::Yes, where possible that’s preferable, or any other online viewable copy is fine too. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Comments on infobox====
	*{{ping\|ජපස}}, {{ping\|GretLomborg}} in line with the need to keep things brief (this discussion will take some time) can I please ask for the content that you've written below to be reduced by half. All, please keep responses around 500 characters for now at a maximum, thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 12:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
	*Hi all - still waiting on a response from a few of you. I'll wait about another 12 hours and then I'll summarise the consensus I see, and then we will proceed with the first section of the article (not the lede section, since that should ideally be a summary of the content of the article). <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

	<div class="boilerplate discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; overflow:auto; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #aaa">
	:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
	::Alright, thanks everyone for your input. I think the consensus we have here is that some changes might be warranted, but agree with the assessment that it is best to wait until the article is rewritten, and then the infobox contents can be updated. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	---- <!-- from Template:discussion top-->
	*No to Template:Infobox philosopher! Infobox:Theologian is better as he is famous for theology. Unverifed claims: Era, Region, and School. Craig is notably a conservative Christian apologist. Notable work = Reasonable Faith is not sourced. Craig's notability is related to apologetics, not books. "Main interests" are primarily sourced, self-involved, and non-notable. Craig's ideas pretend towards academic philosophy, but he is famous as a shadow academic with an outsider philosophical approach. ] (]) 20:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
	* The infobox is fine, except his first two Kalam books should be his most notable work (though Reasonable Faith may be his most popular, who knows). ] is appropriate, and I object to changing it. The ] seem to primarily describe Craig as a philosopher first (e.g. ). His first Ph.D was in Philosophy, his job is Professor of Philosophy , he publishes in philosophy journals e.g. , , , etc. His most well-known work involves nonsectarian religious concepts, which atheist philosophers write about without becoming theologians. Most contemporary philosophers have similar "peculiar identifications" (e.g. ]). Furthermore, ] lacks things that are pertinent to Craig (e.g. advisors). That said, Craig definitely has a foot in theology. I wouldn't object to having two infoboxes, with the philosopher one first and main one. - ] (]) 23:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC) - Condensed by request from ] - ] (]) 19:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
	* <small>(])</small>I prefer to not to take a position about the infobox at current time, since like for the lead, what fits will probably be best determined by reading the "final"/consensus-established article later on. —]] – 23:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
	* No issue with the infobox as currently posted. EDIT: I support the changes recommended by Approaching and Shine. Those edits streamline it a bit and are more accurate. ] (]) 12:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* One additional note related to applicable other pages to model our edits after. I'd point us back to the original filing, point 8 which references the list of good and featured biographies of philosophers. Specifically Bertrand Russell, Alan Turing, and Soren Kierkegaard. ] (]) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Thanks for letting me take part. I think the infobox template is mostly adequate except for some minor deficiencies: (i) The infobox should maybe reflect the article's claim that he was at Westmont College, and (ii) the infobox claims his interest is Apollinarism, which is inaccurate. I have a kindle version of the book referenced in citation 102. He rejects Apollinarism. ] (]) 22:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
	* List of interests is weirdly specific; I'd cut off at "systematic theology". The Kalam is an ancient idea--maybe don't list it as his idea. His ideas can't be summarized for the infobox; maybe omit this part. Per GretLomborg, WLC is primarily a philosopher of religion. He does theology, but he's famous for defending non-sectarian philosophical arguments for theism. He publishes in top journals and top academic presses. He takes mainstream positions on mainstream topics. Thousands of citations from other academics. Suggesting he's a "shadow academic" is false and violates WP:BLP. ] (]) 12:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I'm ok with the infobox as is. ] (]) 09:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
	----
	:''The above discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div>
	====Comments on article content====
	Alright, thanks everyone. Now, let's proceed with the article content. I'll ask if everyone can try and be more responsive on this thread, as the aim is to try and hash out a workable solution as quickly and as easily as possible. We will skip the lead of the article for now, as that will be a summary of the article content.

	Here's how things will work from here.
	* Each section of the article will be posted here as Version 0 (the current version).
	* I would then like each editor to either
	:* State that they are satisfied with the current content of the article, and very briefly, why (no more than 500 characters excluding signature) '''OR'''
	:* Propose an alternate version of that article section, using the format that is listed on ]. Add references, and then after the section, a brief explanation of the exact changes proposed, and then the rationale. Do not edit each others proposals, but suggest alternates.
	* We will discuss and work on the content until we come up with a version that a consensus is formed on, in line with policy. Once that has been done, we will move onto the next section, and repeat until the article content has a consensus.
	Sounds good? Let's begin in the section below. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

	*Just an additional request where possible - is it possible to place in '''''bold and italics''''' in any proposed drafts, changes made compared to the current version, just for ease of reading, wherever this is feasible? Cheers. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*Encouragedto see that we seem to be making some progress so far. This format normally works this way - we start with the content as written, and work on progressive drafts until we find one that works. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 06:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
	=====Comments on Biography section=====
	* Where do we put comments? Here or at the end of the draft 0 section? ] (]) 02:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:*Good point. I used to use this format when ] existed, so it's a little different here. Lets go with commenting in Draft 0 if you're happy with the version as is, otherwise create an alternate version of the section, and leave your rationale in the comments section for that draft. I'd rather not have each draft section be a long conversation, and prefer proposing an alternate draft if any of you prefer an alternate version, however some back-and-forth is fine. I'll be watching this page closely to ensure we stay on track. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

	* {{ping\|GretLomborg}} I’ve noticed in some sections you’ve suggested changes to drafts. Can I ask you to please propose an alternate text (instructions on how to do so and links to the template are above). I realise it may seem a little rigid, but I’ve used this format for years in these situations and it does work. Cheers! <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	* {{ping\|Steven Crossin}} I'm having problems editing this because of the lack of section breaks. Can we insert some, please? I would prefer not to use ;bolding when possible and instead use sub-sub-...-sections. In fact, I just messed up again because of this problem. ] (]) 17:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:Can do, will adjust this shortly. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 22:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	=====Drafts on Bio Section=====
	{{collapse top\|Drafts 0 (current version), 1, 2 and 3 have been collapsed for reading ease}}
	======Draft 0======
	(current version)
	{\| style="background:#d9d9d9"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	Born August 23, 1949, in ], ], Craig is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960. While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell \|url=http://fervr.net/author/37132/ \|website=Fervr \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref> and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} Craig graduated in 1971{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref> He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}} Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref> His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>
	\|}
	''Comments on Draft 0 (current version)''
	* Comment goes here. This is to specifically note that you are happy with the current version, exactly as written. If not, please propose an alternative. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 02:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*This section is straight forward. I doubt anyone will have issues with it, but we'll see. By the way, can you please provide a translation of the Latin below? :) ] (]) 03:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*Looks fine to me. If I were nitpicking, I'd say maybe there are too many numbered inline references popping up too frequently, which interrupts the flow of the text. But that's not important. I'll accept the section in its current state. ] (]) 04:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*I'm happy with the current version. ] (]) 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I can't verify the information for the first sentence (more info below in my other comment). I agree with Approaching that the inline citations are messy (number and position of citations). The sentence about the second doctorate could probably be shorter. Overall, it could be better but I don't debate any of the contents. —]] – 18:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

	======Draft 1======
	{\| style="background:#AADDFF"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	Born August 23, 1949, in ], ], Craig is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960. While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, <s>he converted to Christianity</s> '''''his faculty profile from Biola University says that "he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ",<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref>''''' and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} Craig graduated in 1971{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref> He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}} Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref> His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>
	\|}
	''Rationale for Draft 1 (current version)''
	* Claiming that Craig "converted to Christianity" is an unreasonable paraphrase of his faculty profile's claim about his altar call moment. Also, we don't need two sources that are copies of each other (and obviously just repeating a single source). ] (]) 11:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* <u>'''Brief'''</u> feedback on Draft 1. This comment can be replaced. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 02:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:*I don't think this change is necessary, as the original wording reads better and appears accurate. Though perhaps we could tack more refs onto the sentence. ''The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present'' states "Craig attributes his life's work to a profound religious conversion when he was sixteen years old." He states on his website "to speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school." . These can be reasonably paraphrased as "he converted to Christianity." - ] (]) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:*My impression is that the primary source language is so promotional that the quote is not necessary better... This also unfortunately doesn't address the problematic sourcing of the first line. I can't verify the birth date or parents at the cited sources. The closest book Google shows is . Searching in it seems unsuccessful and the citation doesn't provide the page. —]] – 18:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	::* You can verify his birth date in the second inline cite for that sentence, . ''The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers in America: From 1600 to the Present'' also mentions his birth date and location, which is an inline ref two sentences down. His parent's names can be verified ("Others may know that William Craig is the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig, but I alone can know that I am the second child of Mallory and Doris Craig; no one else can access my first person perspective..."). I personally would like to remove the sentence about his dad's job at the railroad. It's not easily sourceable and it's not worth the effort to do so. - ] (]) 19:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* I find the current language ("converted to Christianity") reasonable. The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia also uses the language of conversion. I don't see the need for this change, but I would love to hear jps further explain his concerns. ] (]) 19:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*People in the conservative Christian Evangelical world often refer to their response to an altar call as "converting to Christianity" even when they were raised mainline Protestant or Catholic, for example. I don't know if this is what is happening here, but I think the claim that someone converted to Christianity needs to attributed directly as it is really one's personal opinion rather than an identifiable moment. If Craig was, for example, baptized in another church before the age of sixteen (I will not dig into baptismal records out of a respect for privacy, but I submit this as a thought experiment), would it be appropriate to say he only converted to Christianity at that age? ] (]) 20:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* I see. Thanks for explaining. When you say that the claim needs to be attributed directly, do you mean that we should hear it from him? I went on his website, reasonablefaith.org, and found some search results where he speaks of his own experience as a conversion. Quote: "So, in a sense, for me my call to full time Christian ministry was simultaneous with my conversion. I soon got into a local church..." . Would this resolve this particular issue for you? ] (]) 22:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	::*I think quoting Craig is fine as it makes it clear that it is his opinion about the event. ] (]) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::* What should that particular sentence read like, in your view? ] (]) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::*I gave one option above. If you wanted to use a different quote, I would be okay with that too, but I'm not sure how to use your quote to do what we would like. ] (]) 09:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::* I see. So in your view, jps, Misplaced Pages should never report religious conversions. Misplaced Pages should only report that ''people believed'' they had religious conversions, and only if they can find direct quotes from the person. And your defense of this position is that religious conversion is a personal opinion, rather than an identifiable moment. Why can't we just take the personal testimony as reliable evidence if it is consistent with everything else? ] (]) 14:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::::*My view is that ] means a lot of different things depending on context, so it is best to ''attribute'' rather than state in Misplaced Pages's voice when person self-reports their conversion. ] (]) 15:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}} That's not the same thing as your earlier claim, which was about personal opinion, rather than semantic ambiguity. To address the ambiguity issue: if we understand religious conversion to involve a substantial change in the details one's religious beliefs and/or practices? If that fits the ordinary usage, and it first the BLP's self-reporting, then the problem of ambiguity is solved, it seems. What other problem is left? ] (]) 15:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Alright, let's move this conversation along. The idea here is to progressively work on drafts - can you please give a view on Draft 3 which is the latest draft, and then propose further drafts as needed. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 16:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:Rather than descending into personalization and rudeness. I will just say that the semantic ambiguity has always been my concern. If we ], I think it clear that we not use Misplaced Pages's voice to assert the personal ''opinion'' of Craig that he converted at sixteen. It is a simple matter to attribute that opinion with a quotation, or with an attributory statement such as, "Craig says he converted to Christianity at the age of sixteen". ] (]) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	;References
	{{collapse top\|References}}
	{{reflist\|2}}
	{{collapse bottom}}

	======Draft 2======
	{\| style="background:#FFFF33"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	Born August 23, 1949, in ], ]. Craig was <s>is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}}</s> born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/ \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960. While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell \|url=http://fervr.net/author/37132/ \|website=Fervr \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref> and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} Craig graduated in 1971{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} '''''They have two grown children and reside in Atlanta, Georgia.'''''<ref>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref> He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}} Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref> His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>
	\|}
	''Rationale for Draft 2''
	* Happy to accept draft 0 as is, but I thought a few small corrections would be warranted.
	* I struck the "second of three children" language. Looking around I couldn't find a reference for that data anywhere.
	* I added that he and his wife have raised two children in line with the biographies of Kierkegaard and Russell. It is referenced both in the linked article and on his CV.
	* Language difference in draft 1 is fine I guess. It seems a little odd to have the hedging language given that this point is referenced in at least four of our sources the exact same way. Normally the "according to" language serves to hedge the editors from a statement by a source that might be controversial, which this doesn't seem to be. We can add it if there aren't other objections, it just seems an overly complex way of saying the exact same thing.
	] (]) 14:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:*While I have no doubt that Craig heeded an altar call at age 16, calling it a "conversion" to Christianity in Misplaced Pages's voice is certainly not a universally accepted interpretation of such an event. According to language is used because this is a ''direct quote'' and not a paraphrase. ] (]) 14:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	::* See my comments above. One source uses the term "conversion" to refer to the experience, and Craig himself says he "became a Christian" at that time. It's a fair paraphrase of the latter to say he "converted to Christianity." I also think it would be inappropriate to use hedging language here. - ] (]) 15:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* I like it, but I would like condense the birth information to "Born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois to Mallory and Doris Craig." and I would also like to strike "His father's work with the T. P. & W. railroad took the family to Keokuk, Iowa, until his transfer to the home office in East Peoria in 1960." I think the former reads better, and the latter seems not terribly relevant to the biography and I haven't been able to source it easily (beyond him spending his childhood in Keokuk) using Google. - ] (]) 16:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* Between the original text and this one, I find both acceptable. I couldn't verify claims of the first sentence. —]] – 19:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* Squatch347, you might be interested in GretLomborg's second comment on the previous draft, which found a citation for the claim that he was the second of three children. ] (]) 19:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	;References
	{{collapse top\|References}}
	{{reflist\|3}}
	{{collapse bottom}}

	======Draft 3======
	{\| style="background:#FFD980"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	'''''William Lane Craig was''''' born August 23, 1949 in ], ] '''''to Mallory and Doris Craig. ''''' <s>Craig was is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/ \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960.</s> While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he converted to Christianity,<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell \|url=http://fervr.net/author/37132/ \|website=Fervr \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref> '''''''''' and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} Craig graduated in 1971{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} '''''They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia.'''''<ref>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref> He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}} Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref> His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}} with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>
	\|}

	''Rationale for Draft 3''

	* This is a revision of ]'s draft. The first couple sentences regarding his birth have been condensed and the refs improved. Citations were added to the sentence about his conversion, and added a mention the he lives in a suburb not Atlanta itself. - ] (]) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I like this draft the best so far. I agree with the suggested changes for the reasons given. I also think that the language of conversion is appropriate per the RS. No RS I'm aware of refers to an "altar call" so I don't know where that claim is coming from. ] (]) 00:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Agreed that this is the best version so far. The railroad info is interesting and in line with the other bios I referenced for style, but I agree it isn't worth tracking down a source. We might consider readding the second of three children language given you found an acceptable reference. Birth order is standard encyclopedia trivia. ] (]) 01:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I think this draft is the best too. <s>Four minor, entirely negotiable nitpicks:
	: (i) I don't think it's within the scope of the encyclopedia to track the ages of the children of BLPs, so simply stating the BLP has two children seems sufficient, without determining whether they are grown or not.
	: (ii) I don't have a problem with the biographical information previously struck out, if we do indeed have adequate sources for them.
	: (iii) I think the alumnus of the year statement is better suited for the second paragraph, since the first paragraph is focused on his early life and family.
	: (iv) The BLP has two doctorates, and by extension, would presumably have two theses. Maybe it's worth specifying that the historical argument was his second doctoral thesis.</s> ] (]) 17:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

	*This version ''still'' asserts as fact that Craig converted at the age of sixteen, but it is his personal opinion. ] (]) 16:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* It's not his personal opinion, it's a fact about his own self-identity. - ] (]) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::*No, the fact about his own self-identity is that he is a Christian. The statement that he "converted" at sixteen in a particular event is his ''testimony''. ] (]) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	*I object to the use of 's source churnalism standing in as scholarship from the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers. I wrote Bloomsbury to ask them to take down this poorly researched and written entry. Apart from the fact that these two conservative Christians are not ideologically ] of the beliefs of William Lane Craig, they also have not sufficiently cited sources in their entry. Suggest removing the source entirely. ] (]) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::The Robinson and Baggett piece is in an encyclopedia published by Bloomsbury Academic, a well-regarded, award-winning, academic press. It was edited by John R. Shook, a widely-published and cited philosopher who works on pragamtism and philosophy of mind. is Shook's Scholar page. I see no RS indicating what the ideology of Robinson or Baggett is, so that seems to be irrelevant speculation. Also, it isn't clear why their personal religious or theological beliefs are relevant. The Bloomsbury RS reports that Craig converted to Christianity when he was 16. That should settle it. ] (]) 18:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::It does not settle it. The source is ideologically compromised and I received word that there might be some gaming going on here. It seems that the source was specifically submitted to raise the profile of Craig, but there is no indication that it was reviewed. I am in conversation with Bloomsbury about this. This is entirely separate from the matter of a personal conversion being an ]. ] (]) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::* Those are some pretty serious allegations, and I think they need more support than the vague insinuations that you have provided here. - ] (]) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* I reject your suggestion to remove the entry from the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Philosophers as a source. I see no good reason to doubt its accuracy concerning Craig. I note your link to ], and ''again'' reject the assertion that ] applies to this article. Philosophy and theology are their own mainstream (and very diverse) fields, and Craig is not a fringe participant in them. - ] (]) 18:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::*The reason to doubt the accuracy is because the authors are fundamentalist Christians. Typically, fundamentalist Christians are not known for good fact checking. ] (]) 19:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::This comment looks to me like another violation of WP:BLP, and I request that it be struck. ] (]) 19:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I certainly will do no such thing. Both of these authors are creationists and we should look for additional verification of anything they write owing to their ] status. It seems Bloomsbury dropped the ball here. ] (]) 19:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Even accepting your assertion that the authors of the Bloomsbury article are "fundamentalist Christians" (which I do not, to be clear), are you seriously claiming that they're going to have disqualifying problems accurately reporting biographical stuff like someone's birth date and educational history because of their religious beliefs? - ] (]) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::*Yes. I have been badly burned in the past accepting at face value ideologically compromised sources for seeming non-controversial facts (for example, verifying credentials). I just ask that we find some additional sources to fact check. Right now, this article is being leaned on way too hard. ] (]) 19:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::* I disagree that the Robinson and Baggett/Boomsbury Encyclopedia source is "{{tq\|being leaned on way too hard}}." Do you have any evidence to show that Craig's credentials, for instance, may have been misreported in that encyclopedia entry? - ] (]) 19:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} Alright, thanks for the feedback on this draft so far everyone. I’m putting a 12 hour circuit breaker on this discussion, and I’ll look through the draft and comments here to help us come up with a way forward. (May be less, and then we can proceed but want some time to review.) <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	: (Sorry what do we mean by a 12-hour circuit breaker? I'm not up to date on the hip new slang. I just learned what "on fleek" means last month....) ] (]) 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	::Huh, maybe I only use that term. Basically I’m freezing extended discussion until my questions are responded to (below, I was edit conflicted, terrible thing to happen on an iPad!) <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

	::OK, from reading the discussion here, ], please clarify - your objection seems to be how this draft words the claim that Craig converted to Christianity, and additionally the use of the text by Robinson and Baggett? If these are the two objections, a yes will suffice. Otherwise please clarify briefly below. ], I’ll need a link to the source please - as its a book, I need to be able to access a copy of it. Can you please provide that? I’ll likely discuss this with editors at the Reliable Sources noticeboard - however my initial thoughts are this: we need to take care to not synethesise the content of sources and what they say.

	::That said, a statement of sorts by the subject of an article can be used for select information in an article, unless there are multiple secondary sources that refute that claim, and the claim doesn’t meet the ] criteria. For example, if a person in on their own website biography, stated that they were born in Chicago, we would write in the article “X was born in Chicago(ref here)” and not “According to X, they were born in Chicago” or “X claims they were born in Chicago”. I’d like a copy of the source so I can review, but noting the quote in a reference from Craig directly ''“To speak personally, I myself was not raised in an evangelical home, but I became a Christian my third year of high school”'' - do we agree that this quote is from Craig directly? If so, the approach we take here is to include for this particular sentence, only the citation directly from Craig (since it is personal information about the subject, and no secondary sources presented seem to refute his religious belief (that he is a Christian). I would disagree that in this instance we need to attribute the claim to Craig in text, but writing “Craig converted to Christianity based on his quote is a synthesis of what the source says - as written in the ] article, conversion to a religion normally means when someone holds a set of religious beliefs, and abandons then in favour of another. I’ve not seen that particular fact noted in the provided sources, so a more accurate writing of the text could simply be “''In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian/adopted Christian beliefs/some other variant(<small>insert Craig quote reference only here</small>)''” This way, we are quoting the subject, and only the subject, on purely personal information. Again, for this item I don’t see the need to attribute the claim in-line by noting the comment was from Craig, that is what having the reference is for, to attribute the text in the article to the source we gathered the information from. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}Yes, except I don't mind attributing Craig's conversion story to him, I just object to it said in Misplaced Pages's voice. ] (]) 02:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
	::* ]: Here's the link I use to the source: (should be a two column scan, other searches give an ebook version without columns). If you search within for "William Lane Craig" you can bypass the preview limits and read the full entry. It has about two pages of bibliography and further reading. Personally, I've never actually read any of Craig's works, beyond a bit of his website in this dispute, but my guess is his conversion story appears in on of his popular books that they cited. He seems to have told it many times in many different venues. has him stating: "I myself was not raised in a Christian home, or even a churchgoing family..." That said, I think the proposal of "{{tq\|In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian}}." is acceptable language to me. Though I think we should keep the Robinson & Bagget source to support it in addition to the primary source to Craig, given the nature and high frequency of challenges that have been made to this article's text. The main concern I have about this passage is that we must not imply inappropriate doubt about the sincerity of someone's personal identity in a BLP. If Craig said he became a Christian, he became a Christian full stop unless we have the ''very best'' sources that give ''very good reasons'' to doubt that. - ] (]) 18:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Thanks for your reply GretLomborg. ], do you agree to the proposed alteration in text that I suggested as a way forward? As a reminder to all editors, I do note that in disputes like this, a little compromise now and then goes a long way. Disputes tougher than this one that I’ve mediated have been resolved through interpreting policies and guidelines and everyone giving a little to get a little. I’d encourage that here. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	::*(I know you didn't ask me, but for the record, the source book is linked in the sources section above, with a direct link to the page. Ctrl+f "Shook" ] (]) 23:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC))
	::::Thanks for that, that’s helpful. It appears the source meets the classification of a ]. The page in question cited here has additional citations for the content they wrote. Can we determine from that entry what citation they came across to make the “profound religious conversion” statement? I would suggest we proceed under that basis here - find what the tertiary source cited, refer to that, and if the citation supports the text, we can discuss. But the suggested approach could well be to just cite what Craig said directly, rather than a third party’s interpretation of what he meant when he said that. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 23:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Could we say, {{tq\|In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig says he became a Christian}}." That would certainly satisfy me and it allows the ''testimonial'' characteristic of his identification (which to me indicates more of a conversion to ''evangelicalism'' rather than Christianity ''writ large'') to feature. Since we cannot ] the Luke 15:10 celebration that occurred in heaven, can we just make it a simple attribution? ] (]) 19:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Nobody said anything about a celebration in heaven. He became a Christian at that time. We don't need to attribute this fact to him, and doing so strikes a skeptical tone that is inappropriate. Is there some RS indicating that he was a Christian prior to the indicated date? Or is that just idle speculation? ] (]) 20:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}Insisting that he became a Christian simply because he said it ''does not make this a fact'' in the ] sense. The ] is not on me to find independent confirmation of this so-called "fact". ] (]) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	: ] supports the line about conversion to Christianity: (i) There is no serious dispute about whether Craig is now a Christian, or that he was not born a Christian but converted to Christianity early in his life. The criteria for facthood is satisfied. (ii) The claim that Craig is a Christian, or that he converted to Christianity early in his life are neither considered opinions. The criteria for opinionhood is not satisfied. (iii) Furthermore, claims about one's internal mental states, such as beliefs, are almost always taken to be fact; we do not write of Daniel Dennett that "he believes himself to be a philosopher". ] (]) 21:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	::Jps, based on my review of this discussion and the relevant policies and conventions, we will move on from here. It’s not appropriate to word things in a way such as what you’ve suggested in this instance - if the fact that he was a Christian or the rough period that this belief occurred was refuted by a source, then such a wording might be appropriate. ASF does not apply here - it is not standard practice to state “X person claims they are Y” - personal information that comes directly for the source, especially viewpoints they hold attributed to themselves, do not need to be written in this way unless they are contested by other sources. I’ve not seen that occur in this instance, and the case that this is an opinion that is contested has not been made, so it’s not appropriate to style the text this way. Shortly I’ll propose a draft 4 incorporating the changes that have been suggested thus far. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 21:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::To be clear, the issue here is ''not'' with the identity of Craig as a Christian. The issue is with the precise meaning of what it means to "become" a Christian (or "convert to Christianity") in the context of a predominately Christian culture and a household that was apparently nominally unconnected to church but not overtly orthogonal to religious belief. What we are adopting here is a strictly evangelical mindset towards what it means to "be a Christian". Specifically, evangelicals and other low church Protestants believe in the ] which presumes that every individual converts to Christianity as a profession of individual faith. This is very interesting, but it is strictly the ''opinion'' of religious believers that this is what it means to "become" a Christian or "convert". What we are adopting is a subtle but important violation of NPOV in favor of the perspective of Craig -- that of Evangelical Christianity. I am sure there is a way to word this so that it satisfies people without succumbing to this problem if we workshop in good faith. ] (]) 23:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::Jps, I take your point here - "became a Christian/converted to Christianity" may be seen by some as meaning the same thing (however my reading of it is that one may have held no religion and then adopted a set of beliefs, making "became an X" appropriate. If there's an alternate wording here, let's look for it - though I maintain "became a Christian" is probably pretty close (I believe some references presented indicated he may have been an atheist/agnostic before?). As we are citing the subject directly for this sentence, it's not necessary to attribute it in line - this is what the reference is for and as no sources have been presented to cast doubt on his account of this piece of personal information, it doesn't seem appropriate to proceed with that style of referencing. If you do have a source that casts doubt on his account of his religious belief, then for personal, biographical information, this path seems appropriate - ''purely for this instance only''. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::"Became a Christian" is an advantage because it avoids the ambiguity of ], but we are running into ] arguments with the question of what Craig ''actually means'' by what occurred at the age of sixteen. This is in ''no way'' trying to cast doubt on Craig's story. I am actually interested in the reader being able to understand the context of this kind of testimony in the context of Craig's faith. Many people who are not evangelical simply ''do not understand'' what an evangelical means when they say that they converted. It does not mean the same thing as when someone talks about converting to other religions. These vivid ] experiences serve as touchstone points and are therefore extremely relevant to biographies of such people, but the testimonials intentionally are framed as a particular ''kind'' of narrative informed by the religious community (c.f. ). I think the ''testimony'' aspect of Craig's conversion story is vital, and I would argue that this is the way he is actually treating this point. ] (]) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::::I cannot make sense of jps above. It seems that jps was suggesting that Craig may not have become a Christian at 16, but now he says he is not casting doubt on what Craig says. In any case, I'm fine with saying that Craig became a Christian when he was 16 rather than saying that he converted to Christianity then. I regard these formulations as equivalent. I do not think we should get into Craig's theology of conversion in this section. ] (]) 03:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}I am not casting doubt on what Craig says because Craig's conversion testimony serves a different purpose than a means to tell the history of his religious identity as we would sample it in a survey, for example. The problem is that many people don't know about this distinction and so such wording can be deceiving (see my user talkpage for more). ] (]) 14:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::: I know Steve is on a tight schedule to manage this process. So he might not be able to entertain long conversations. But JFS, I'd love to see you better explain your point on your own talk page so others can engage with it. Seeing as you appealed to religious texts, angels dancing in heaven, etc, I suspected you were pushing a religious interpretation of the language yourself, but it seems you're not. ] (]) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}There is an ongoing discussion of this very issue on my talkpage. You are welcome to join if you would like! ] (]) 23:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

	Steven Crossin, I haven't been able to find their source just yet. I'm happy to look later. But I have been able to find a similar claim made on the BLP's website. At least, I think it reads like it would be an example of a "profound religious conversion".
	{{Quote\|text=To make a long story short, my spiritual search went on for the next six months. I attended Christian meetings; I read Christian books; I sought God in prayer. Finally, one night I just came to the end of my rope and cried out to God. I cried out all the anger and bitterness that had built up inside me, and at the same time I felt this tremendous infusion of joy, like a balloon being blown up and blown up until it was ready to burst! I remember I rushed outdoors—it was a clear, mid-western, summer night, and you could see the Milky Way stretched from horizon to horizon. As I looked up at the stars, I thought, “God! I’ve come to know God!”

	That moment changed my whole life. I had thought enough about this message during those six months to realize that if it were really the truth—really the truth—, then I could do nothing less than spend my entire life spreading this wonderful message among mankind.
	\|source= (date)}}
	] (]) 18:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	:I did a bit more Googling and found these sources that speak to Craig's family's religious beliefs:
	{{Quote\|text=I wasn’t raised in a church-going family, much less a Christian family—though it was a good and loving home. }}
	{{Quote\|text=Well, I come from a non-Christian family, so, when I came to Christ in high school, I wanted to share my faith with my brother and with non-Christian friends in high school. }}
	{{Quote\|text="My folks sort of believed in the man upstairs," he says. "He's sort of up there watching out for you, and that's sort of it." }}
	:- ] (]) 18:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::Right. For Craig, a theist who comes from a Christian background is a "non-Christian" as they are non-practicing. This is a perfectly fine definition to have, but it definitely confuses people. It's why I think it is important to note that Craig is offering his ''testimonial'' as to his conversion. That couches the situation in a way that allows for people to follow the story if they want to. Perhaps a link to ] could help, too? ] (]) 18:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::* Sorry, I don't think "{{tq\|In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian}}" would actually be confusing to readers, nor do I think that wording would be "{{tq\|deceiving}}" to them. - ] (]) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::*Sorry, I don't think "{{tq\|In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig says he became a Christian}}" would actually be confusing to readers, nor do I think that would be implying "{{tq\|inappropriate doubt}}" to them. ] (]) 02:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I agree. Also, where is the claim that his parents were {{tq\|from a Christian background}} coming from? Is that more speculation? ] (]) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}Looks to me like you're the only one ] here. ] (]) 02:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	: In either case, I cannot find any evidence that his parents were Christian, or that he grew up having a Christian background, or anything similar. Nobody else seems persuaded by this, even by their examination of the sources. And you, too, have failed to provide any sources for this claim. I think we should drop the issue, and pick it up only once we find a source for the claim that his parents were Christian. ] (]) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	::I have read the same sources you have, but I think your approach towards trying to understand my point strikes me as more of a ] than a good faith attempt to grok my point. I am not interested in sources about Craig's parents' religious backgrounds. That is not my issue here. ] (]) 15:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

	:For me, there's no deadline. I can, and am in fact are, considering moving this to ], something I've done historically before. I've worked on disputes that took considerable time to work through issues, but we got there, and they were resolved. As other DR forums have largely closed, and a ] only lasts 30 days and is generally not appropriate in this instance, how would editors feel about myself conducting a private mediation, rather than keeping things open at DRN here? <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 00:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::It's fine with me. I'm happy to work through these matters on the talkpage, tbh. ] (]) 01:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

	::I'm ok with it. ] (]) 13:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::Wow, glad I took the weekend off. I'm not familiar with the ins and out of private vs. public mediation. I'll submit to whatever the group wants to do.
	::On the two topics currently at play. I support the agreed to language: "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian."
	::Additionally, I support retention of the Robinson/Blagget source. The rationale for its removal is a bit disconcerting. I don't think we want to be in a place of dismissing sources based on their personal characteristics absent any evidence. That is a road that goes to a dark place.
	::I'll defer to the mediator's plan of action, but review of the continued assertion that ] applies here might help focus this discussion a bit. I don't see that point of contention going away, but rather getting much worse in the next sections.
	:: ] (]) 14:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	:: ] what are the benefits of private mediation as opposed to this process, especially ones that may help in this case? - ] (]) 14:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	::: Also, I don't mind shelving the conversion issue for later, while we work on the other sections in the article. If that is what other people want as well. ] (]) 23:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

	{{outdent}} Apologies for my tardy reply all, had a busy day and a bit. Briefly, private mediation just means we can work through things at our own pace. I'd move this sort of thing in the past to ] but that was closed some time ago, so I'd prefer to mediate it elsewhere. There's no other benefits or downsides to doing this, apart from us having more time to work through issues.

	For the time being, the encyclopaedia reference won't be included on it's own - secondary sources are always preferred to these tertiary sources that cite other (including secondary) sources, and if we can do so, we should do cite these sources directly (and the encyclopaedia mentions their cited sources, so doing so is the preferred approach here). Can we agree on the text '''"In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian"?'''''Italic text'' <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	::I would prefer to be more clear that Craig became an ''Evangelical Christian''. He did not become a Catholic, rather explicitly. This would help mitigate some of my concerns over the way people can be confused about these matters. ] (]) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::Although, to play devil's advocate with my own interrogatives, there is a source linked above which describes his conversion as being more of the ] sort before he was sufficiently immersed in doctrine to understand that he was some particularly non-Mainline-Protestant form. ] (]) 15:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	:I agree with the text '''"In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian"'''. I don't see anything more specific than that in the sources. I'm also fine with private mediation. ] (]) 15:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	:I support "In September 1965, his third year of high school, Craig became a Christian" I'm not sure we should go any more specific on denominations unless a source or quote makes it clear that is what he meant. I'm open to that being the case, I just don't recall him making any kind of theological distinction in the sources we cite. Private mediation seems fine as well. ] (]) 15:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I agree on the "became a Christian" text and incorporated it into a draft below. - ] (]) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	;References
	{{collapse top\|References}}
	{{reflist\|3}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
	======Draft 4======
	{\| style="background:#FDDEDB"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	'''''William Lane Craig was''''' born August 23, 1949 in ], ] '''''to Mallory and Doris Craig. ''''' <s>Craig was is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/ \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960.</s> While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he <s>converted to Christianity</s> '''''became a Christian''''',<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell \|url=http://fervr.net/author/37132/ \|website=Fervr \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref> '''''''''' and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}}'''''''''' Craig graduated in 1971{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}''''' and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}'''''''''' '''''They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia.'''''<ref name="buddha7habits>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref>'''''''''' He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}}'''''''''' Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] '''''''''' to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref>'''''''''' His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=212}}'''''''''' with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>''''''''''
	\|}

	''Rationale for Draft 4''

	* This is a revision of draft 3 that incorporates the "he became a Christian" language that we've been discussing above, but was not actually in draft 3. I personally would also be ok with the "he embraced Christianity" language that was suggested by ] somewhere, though that might require a bit more context. - ] (]) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* I'm okay with this. I personally think "he embraced Christianity" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. On the issue of sourcing: Steven Crossin asked to look into the John Shook article source. There are endnotes for the article, but they are not shown by google books. If someone else can access them, great. ] (]) 01:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::* {{ping\|Approaching}} I think those pages are accessible in google books, you just have to hit the right edition with the right search terms. Try following the procedure I outlined here , but clicking page 211 from might be an easier way to do it. - ] (]) 03:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::* Tried it. Got to the bibliography at the end of the encyclopedic entry, but none of the bib. entries look like they would talk about his personal life/conversion. Either way, we have his website, and someone else linked to a youtube video of him literally saying it out loud. That should be more than enough reason to establish its veracity. ] (]) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::* My sense is he's probably given a similar accounts to the ones we've found in one or more of his popular books, but I agree that we have reasonable, verifiable wording and can proceed to other things. - ] (]) 14:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	*Looks good. I'm for saying when he became a Christian. ] (]) 02:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	*This looks fine to me. I'd still be ok with re-inserting the "second of three children language" since that relationship is often covered in our other reference articles and we have a source now. But it certainly isn't a show stopper. ] (]) 13:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

	*ALL - ], ], ], ],],],] - I am putting a 48 hour clock on this draft. We seem to have been able to work towards a consensus here. Can I get a final yea or nay on Draft 4 - if agreed as is we will proceed. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 15:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	:: {{ping\|Steven Crossin}} I think you forgot ]. - ] (]) 17:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::Yes and no, but they already indicated they were happy with Draft4, but thanks :-) <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 17:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes that looks good to me. ] (]) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* yea on draft 4. - ] (]) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Let's remove some of the tertiary references for biographical facts, please. ] (]) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes on draft 4. ] (]) 19:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes, once more, if it helps finalize this section and move on to the next one. ] (]) 19:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes. ] (]) 06:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	* Yes. ] (]) 14:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

	======Draft 5======
	{\| style="background:#BCDECC"
	\|-
	\|'''Biography'''
	'''''William Lane Craig was''''' born August 23, 1949 in ], ] '''''to Mallory and Doris Craig. ''''' <s>Craig was is {{citation needed span \|date=September 2018 \|text=the second of three children}} born to Mallory and Doris Craig.{{sfn\|"William Lane Craig"\|2007}}<ref name="rf-cv">{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Curriculum Vitae \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/ \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170601130720/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/william-lane-craig/curriculum-vitae \|archive-date=June 1, 2017 \|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> His father's work with the T. P. & W. ] took the family to ], ], until his transfer to the home office in ] in 1960.</s> While a student at ] (1963–1967),<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Debating \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512214855/https://www.reasonablefaith.org/debating \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 8, 2014}}</ref> Craig became a championship debater and public speaker,{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}} being named his senior year to the all-state debate team and winning the state championship in oratory.<ref>{{cite web \|title=Records and History – Original Oratory \|url=http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/IndividualEvents/RecordsHistory.aspx?url=/data/ie/records/index.htm \|publisher=Illinois High School Association \|access-date=May 27, 2015}}</ref> In September 1965, his junior year, he <s>converted to Christianity</s> '''''became a Christian''''',<ref name="Faculty Profile">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|location=La Mirada, California \|publisher=Biola University \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814023848/http://www.talbot.edu/faculty/profile/william_craig/ \|archive-date=August 14, 2014 \|access-date=May 5, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig and Sean McDowell \|url=http://fervr.net/author/37132/ \|website=Fervr \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref> '''''''''' and after graduating from high school, attended ], majoring in communications.'''''''''' Craig graduated in 1971''''' and the following year married his wife Jan,<ref name="rf-cv"/> whom he met on the staff of ].'''''''''' '''''They have two grown children and reside in suburban Atlanta, Georgia.'''''<ref name="buddha7habits>{{cite web \|last=Schneider \|first=Nathan \|author-link=Nathan Schneider \|date=July 12, 2013 \|title=7 Habits of a Highly Effective Philosopher \|url=http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/witness/7-habits-of-a-highly-effective-philosopher/ \|website=Killing the Buddha \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 2014, he was named alumnus of the year by Wheaton.<ref name="Wheaton College">{{cite web \|date=May 7, 2014 \|title=Dr. William Lane Craig Named Alumnus of the Year \|url=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|location=Wheaton, Illinois \|publisher=Wheaton College \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213253/https://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/News/2014/05/Dr-William-Lane-Craig-Named-Alumnus-of-the-Year \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 11, 2014}}</ref>

	In 1973 Craig entered the program in ] at ] north of ], where he studied under ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|pp=211–212}}<ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|title=Double Doctorates \|url=http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|website=Reasonable Faith \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140512231322/http://www.reasonablefaith.org/double-doctorates \|archive-date=May 12, 2014 \|access-date=May 10, 2014}}</ref> In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the ], ],<ref name="calvin-edu">{{cite web \|title=William Lane Craig \|url=https://calvin.edu/directory/series/william-lane-craig \|website=calvin.edu \|publisher=Calvin College \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref> writing on the Cosmological Argument<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> under the direction of ].{{sfn\|Robinson\|Baggett\|2016\|p=211}}<ref name="iep-cramer">{{cite journal \|last1=Cramer \|first1=David C. \|title=John Hick (1922—2012) \|journal=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/ \|issn=2161-0002 \|quote=Many of former students are now established Christian philosophers in their own right, including ... William Lane Craig...}}</ref>'''''''''' He was awarded a doctorate in 1977.{{sfnm \|1a1=Robinson \|1a2=Baggett \|1y=2016 \|1p=211 \|2a1="William Lane Craig" \|2y=2007}}'''''''''' Out of this study came his first book, ''The Kalam Cosmological Argument'' (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work.<ref name="Schneider 2013"/> Craig was awarded a ] in 1978 from the ] '''''''''' to pursue research on the historicity of the ] under the direction of ] at the ] in ].<ref name="calvin-edu"/><ref name="ct-sanders">{{cite web \|last1=Sanders \|first1=Fred \|title=The Strange Legacy of Theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg \|url=https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|website=Christianity Today \|accessdate=12 June 2019 \|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921010516/https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/september-web-only/strange-legacy-theologian-wolfhart-pannenberg.html \|archivedate=21 September 2014 \|date=18 September 2014 \|quote=Accordingly, Pannenberg marshaled the available evidence and argued that the most rational interpretation of it is that Christ actually rose from the dead. That a high-level German theologian would defend Christ’s resurrection as a knowable fact was headline news in the religious press of the 1970s. It’s no surprise, then, that Pannenberg’s emphasis on the historical reliability of the Resurrection attracted students like apologist William Lane Craig.}}</ref>'''''''''' His studies in ] under Pannenberg's supervision led to a second doctorate, this one in theology,<ref name="Wheaton College"/><ref>{{cite web \|last=Craig \|first=William Lane \|date=April 28, 2013 \|title=Creation and Evolution (Part 2) \|url=https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-creation-and-evolution/creation-and-evolution-part-2/ \|website=Defenders Podcast \|publisher=Reasonable Faith \|access-date=October 1, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Schneider 2013"/> awarded in 1984'''''''''' with the publication of his doctoral thesis, ''The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the ] Controversy'' (1985).<ref>{{cite web \|title=The historical argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist controversy \|url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/historical-argument-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-during-the-deist-controversy/oclc/925034139 \|website=WorldCat \|publisher=Online Computer Library Center \|accessdate=9 April 2019}}</ref>''''''''''
	\|}
	;References
	{{collapse top\|References}}
	{{reflist\|3}}
	{{collapse bottom}}

	''Rationale for Draft 5''

	:Removing tertiary references that are unnecessary. Otherwise the same as '''Draft 4'''. ] (]) 18:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::Can you for clarity add, and strike out the references that you removed, or note them here please? <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 18:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::I simply removed some of the extra ones that were added by others for reasons that they did not explain. ] (]) 21:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	: I was initially in favor of removing the gratuitous references. But then I discovered that this article has a history of editors raising problems with the article on a word-by-word level. It's this critical attention to the article that led to the large number of references in the first place. If we remove the citations, it'll just bring those problems back, so I learn towards keeping the extraneous citations now. ] (]) 19:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::I think this is a terrible justification for ]. ] (]) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::: I don't know if this is a case of citation overkill. Citation overkill seems to involve improper use of citations. I think the issue here is an improper editing. I'd like to revisit the issue after the whole article is finished. But for now, I prefer Draft 4. ] (]) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I'm still in favor of draft 4 and keeping all the references to the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia source. If they weren't necessary, we probably wouldn't be here. - ] (]) 20:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	* I'm also in favor of draft 4 with all references. ] (]) 20:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::These references do not appear to be vetted beyond the citations already in the article. ''What is the point of referencing a source that references ''the same sources already in the article''?'' ] (]) 21:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Much of article's biographical text can be supported by content in the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia source. Much of it now is also supported by Craig's resume, which is a primary source. There have been significant numbers of challenges to this article's content, many of them objecting to the use of primary sources. Due to the history of those challenges, we should not be removing non-primary sources. I also believe you are the only one who really objects to the Bloomsbury Encyclopedia (basically on account of what you assume the author's religious views to be: "{{tq\|The reason to doubt the accuracy is because the authors are fundamentalist Christians. Typically, fundamentalist Christians are not known for good fact checking}}"). I have no issue with using it to source basic facts for a biographical sketch. - ] (]) 22:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::Actually, I also pointed out the preference to not use a tertiary source, but to use the secondary sources that the tertiary source cited. If the tertiary source is citing an existing primary or secondary source for content in the article - it is superfluous and shouldn't be added. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Yes, this is what I thought. But apparently, any suggestion I make is going to be resisted because apparently we "wouldn't be here" if they "weren't necessary"? What does that kind of assumption of bad faith even ''mean''? ] (]) 12:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::* {{ping\|Steven Crossin}} The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia article isn't citing Craig's resume or any of the sources that I recently added to this section. Also, it appears that encyclopedia article can perhaps be considered secondary source in relation to Craig, as its bibliography cites Craig's works directly (works that I don't have access to). - ] (]) 14:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	::::Agreed that the tertiary source should be removed to the extent that it is simply providing circuitous citation to the same source. That will likely be an issue we need to be aware of when it comes to summary of his positions (in that case it might be preferable to us reading the primary sources to avoid ]). However, for biographical information it doesn't appear to be citing any of those sources. Those sources tend to be related to his academic or popular works rather than his CV data. I think, when related to his biographical data this is a secondary rather than tertiary source.

	::::One additional piece of information. I think you'll see some hesitance from this group to strike additional sourced based on personal history with this page. There has been a tendency to delete large portions of this page as "overly reliant on primary sources" and I think the concern is that this leaves this section open to that kind of future "cleansing" as well. If you look at the article's talk page you'll see a large amount of discussion primary sources and how that means the page needs to be simply scratched. Just some insight from my foxhole. ] (]) 19:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{od}}That's always going to be a risk. The tertiary source actually doesn't make you immune from that. I have been quite insistent that we look for high-quality secondary sources, but they are scarce so far. Biographical details can be sourced to primary sources if they are providing background, but having secondary sources would solidify their ]. ] (]) 10:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	::::: If someone can give me a list of statements supported by tertiary sources, we can start hunting for secondary sources that cover the statements. Specifics would be nice, because the Bloomsbury source doesn't have inline citations. ] (]) 21:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

	=====Bio section discussion - section break=====
	<s>* Alright, for now, let's move along. I would support working through this section at a later date, purely for updating of references. But the text of the article has been agreed to in Draft 4, so I am for now determining that there is a consensus to proceed with the text of Draft 4, which I will now implement into the article, and we will move on to the next section and discuss from there. The details of tertiary references to include or exclude can be discussed at a later date.

	:I will be implementing a small change to Draft 4, namely changing the first sentence to "Craig was born on August 23, 1949 in..." as this is in line with the MOS, rather than the current formatting. We don't bold names outside of the lede section, and normally refer to the subject of an article by their surname only after the first usage. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)</s>

	* After reviewing the text of the article while I was implementing Draft 4, I in fact '''do not''' see a consensus for it that is in line with policy, or several other drafts. I think we can get there, but I am recommending that we end the discussion here, and move to informal mediation at another venue. We will continue discussion there, and I will shortly post where it will be held. Cheers. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* Could you explain in further detail what the problem is? If not here, in private mediation. ] (]) 00:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
	:* {{ping\|Steven Crossin}} Could you clarify what the issue is? - ] (]) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
	::I'll continue the discussion at the newly created page for the informal mediation, ], and will outline the concerns I see there. Will close this thread up within 24 hours. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ]</span> 16:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

	== List of online encyclopedias ==

	{{DR case status\|close}}
	{{DRN archive top\|reason=Closing this up. Discussion has petered out, edit has been made and stands unchanged for now. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 17:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)}}

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 694:		Line 28:

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|~~List~~ of ~~online~~ ~~encyclopedias~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|~~PCHS-NJROTC~~}}		* {{User\|Abo Yemen}}
	* {{User\|~~FuzzyCatPotato~~}}		* {{User\|Javext}}
	* {{User\|Avernarius}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the ]) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per ]). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.
	On June 22, 2019, I removed ] from ] on the basis that . This action was challenged by ], and we discussed on the talk page, coming to the conclusion that RationalWiki should be included despite its own views of itself due to ] coverage, and RationalWiki was re-entered by Avernarius as a science-related encyclopedia per the talk page. ], who is a former Board of Trustees member for the RationalMedia Foundation (who has entered the conversation and proceeded to challenge the move from the "general reference" section to the "science and technology" section, claiming that the ] describe RationalWiki as a general reference. I have reviewed the sources FCP have provided, and I do not see anything stating that RationalWiki is a "general reference encyclopedia," rather I see the sources describing it as an encyclopedic resource covering pseudoscience topics, which seems would solidly put the wiki under science and technology. , which explicitly says that it is not a general encyclopedia and does not cover topics unrelated to it's mission, pretty much seals the deal per ] in my opinion. Disclaimer: I am a sysop-lite on ].

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''~~Have~~ you tried to resolve this ~~previously~~?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

			]
	The three of us have discussed the matter on the talk page, but finding a solution that is acceptable to both me (PCHS-NJROTC) and FuzzyCatPotato seems to be tough at this point.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

			The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous ]
	I am hoping to peacefully establish consensus as to where to include RationalWiki in the list, if at all.

	==== Summary of dispute by ~~FuzzyCatPotato~~ ====		==== Summary of dispute by Javext ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	see below ] (]) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

			Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".
	==== Summary of dispute by Avernarius ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	The main task of the list is, to find the wiki at all. The characterization is secondary. The solution could be a note, stating the diverging views. Have fine day! ] (]) 05:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

			Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:
	=== List of online encyclopedias discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a question that can be resolved by discussion (such as of how to list it)? ] (]) 01:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*:If you mean at the talk page, I doubt it. Although I want to keep this about the content and not the editors, part of the reason I decided to go this route was due to previous encounters with FuzzyCatPotato. I'm hoping that discussion will remain more ] and productive here. This is my first time at DRN since joining Misplaced Pages over ten years ago, so apologies if I seem "new" to this, but I am hoping that some discussion here and uninvolved opinions can resolve the matter. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - FuzzyCatPotato do you have any issue with it being classified as science based on the sources included in PCHS-NJROTC's reply on the talk page? ] (]) 14:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	*:This case has been open for a week, FCP is no where to be seen, and everyone else seems to not care where it is placed, just that it does belong in there. Does anyone other than FCP have a different opinion of the sources than my own? Obviously I think the sources favor my position over FCP's (the one source blatantly favors my position), and FCP kind of made this change in spite of on-going discussion, does anyone have any objection to me undoing FCP's change, and then we can reopen this if he returns and objects to it? To be honest, ], I'm not even really sure why he made the change, going against the position of the very organization he officially represents. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
	*::{{ping\|SpoonLuv}} yes. I've provided 2 reliable sources which describe RationalWiki as an encyclopedia:
	*::https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3151?journalCode=pto& I suggest the encyclopedic resource http://rationalwiki.org as a starting point.
	*::https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 "RationalWiki (http: //rationalwiki.org/) is also a wiki encyclopedia project website, which was, in turn, created as a liberal response to Conservapedia"
	*::AVS also provided 1 reliable source which describes RationalWiki as an encyclopedia:
	*::https://www.thedailybeast.com/kill-all-citations-sloppy-sourcing-plagues-kill-all-normies-book-on-sjws-and-the-alt-right But Nagle never mentions RationalWiki, another online encyclopedia
	*::PCHS-NJROTC has provided 1 primary source https://rationalwiki.org/RationalWiki:Mission and claims it is evidence against including RationalWiki in the "general reference" section. Quoting:
	*::"RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of RationalWiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world."
	*::At most this suggests RationalWiki should not be in the "general reference" section, but it doesn't suggest which section it should be in. If we're willing to ], which appears to be what PCHS-NJROTC has done to categorize it as "science", then we see that its content spans all of the sections on the page: , , , , , , , , , . This suggests the best section is the least specific section: general reference, despite RationalWiki's protestations. ] (]) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	*:::I'm not challenging that these sources describe RationalWiki as an ''encyclopedia'', I am challenging the claim that these sources describe RationalWiki as a ''general reference'' encyclopedia. I think the disconnect is that somehow FCP is not understanding that this list is not a list of wikis, but rather a list of encyclopedias; a science and technology encyclopedia is indeed an ''encyclopedia'', and that's how RW is best described per the reliable sources. FCP wants to introduce ] into the discussion, but in addition to the obvious policy problems with that (including ]), we have the problem that even though some of the topics FCP mentioned are not exactly scientific subjects, they are covered from the standpoint of RationalWiki's mission, and despite what FCP says, . Another problem with FCP's argument is that, while Rational-Wiki may have some content that is not science related (especially in the "Fun" namespace), ] and ] have articles unrelated to pop culture and fiction (HowTo:Play Conservatroll and HowTo:Play RationalTroll at Uncyclopedia are not exactly either of those, for example). The hopeless idea of Wikipedians determining what Rational-Wiki is through original research is why I think we should stick to ], which (including R-W itself) classify Rational-Wiki as an encyclopedia covering issues related to pseudoscience. Rational-Wiki's own state mission is to refute pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, document "crank" ideas, explore authoritarianism and fundamentalism (both of which someone from Rational-Wiki's POV would associate with pseudoscience), and analyze how these topics are covered by the media, so clearly Rational-Wiki is ''primarily'' a science and technology encyclopedia, not a general reference like Misplaced Pages or ], which covers a wide variety of topics. I'm interested in the uninvolved community's opinion on this. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	*I went ahead and made a ] move sinc{e there doesn't seem to be any objection to my position, and FCP has been silent despite making edits since this discussion started, I say lets leave this open a few more days just to see if he chimes in now that his edit has been reverted and close it out in about two or three days if no objections from him or anyone else. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"
	== Talk:Sahaja Yoga ==

			-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"
	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 05:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1563861211}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Freelion\|05:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed. The filing editor has not listed the other editor or notified them. If the filing editor does not know how to file a case, they should ask for help from one of the volunteers, or at ]. Otherwise, the case can proceed at ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
			11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

			I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|Talk:Sahaja Yoga}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|Freelion}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."
	Another user Alexbrn I believe is editing the article on Sahaja Yoga tendentiously. He has a long history of debunking articles that feature information that does not comply with mainstream medical science. I have been blocked twice for attempting to bring him to heal for ignoring the BRD cycle, removing reliable sources, and skewing the article by cherrypicking content from sources, also he is insisting on certain interpretations of sources that are unbalanced and only promote his view.

			-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."
	I have provided accurate edit summaries, he is very brief. I have documented every one of my changes on the talk page in numbered points. He continues to ignore this and threaten me with being blocked again.

			So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.
	The talk page as mentioned. I also reported him for edit warring.

			Thank you for whoever reads this. ] (]) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			:The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the ] and ] sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.{{pb}}{{tqb\|1=Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.}}<br>{{pb}}First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see ]). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the ''"Standford" University Press'' (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just ].{{pb}}{{tqb\|1=The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory}}<br>{{pb}}Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in ] and in ]? Something doesn't make any sense here.{{pb}}Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did; <br>{{tq\|1=For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, '''claiming''' that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.}}<br> Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.{{pb}}Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.{{pb}}{{tqb\|1=I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy}}<br>Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See ] and ], both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.<br>{{tqb\|1=The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.}}<br>Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "{{tq\|1=(as already stated in the sources above)}}" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...{{pb}}{{tqb\|1=It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.}}<br>I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this ''']]''' 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::''"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."''
			::.
			::'''Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to ], the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.
			::-'''
			::''"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."''
			::.
			::'''You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.'''
			::-
			::''"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."''
			::.
			::'''What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..'''
			::-
			::''"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
			::'' 'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.' ''
			::''Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."''
			::.
			::'''I already responded to this above'''
			::-
			::''"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."''
			::.
			::'''Hello?? ''"defended itself from the invaders"'' - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary ''they were horribly routed''……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "'''
			::-
			::''"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."''
			::.
			::'''I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the ''Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."'''''
			::-
			::''"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."''
			::.
			::'''I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet[REDACTED] standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. ''"None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."'' Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out..''' ] (]) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion ===
	Provide a referee to insist that he engage properly with the points raised on the talk page.

	=== Talk:Sahaja Yoga discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - The filing editor has not listed the other editor. Also, the other editor has filed an inquiry at ]. If the filing editor notifies the other editor properly, they need to agree on whether to have this case discussed here or at FTN. A case cannot be handled in two places at once. ] (]) 01:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			=== Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	== Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section ==

			I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of ]. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a ]; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are ] of this.
	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1563901201}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Romomusicfan\|17:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed as pending via the RFC. A ] takes priority over other forms of dispute resolution. Wait for the RFC to be closed in 30 days. Also, ] is cautioned that, as they have discovered, sometimes using an account and sometimes using an IP address is discouraged, and may appear to be either vote-stacking or evasion. Disruption of the RFC may be reported at ] after reading ]. ] (]) 01:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind ]. ] (]) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

			=== Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
			I have read and am willing to follow ]. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. <br><small>(Do we state what changes we want now?)</small> ''']]''' 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	* {{pagelinks\|Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section}}
			:{{Ping\|Abo Yemen}} Yes. ] (]) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
			::Alright,<br><u>Changes that I want to be made:</u>
	* {{User\|Romomusicfan}} (also posts while logged out, mainly from IP 62.190.148.115)
			::* I want the ] section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
	* {{User\|Woovee}}
			::* The infobox should Include the ] with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text<ref>: {{tq\|1=However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. '''With the apparent collusion of some Mahra,''' the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).}}</ref>
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
			::* As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about ] and ]).
			:: ''']]''' 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
	Woovee previosuly insisted on deletion of section on disputed reunions of the band such as ] and ], on the grounds that the late Marc Bolan was the band.
			For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. ] (]) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{Ping\|Abo Yemen\|Javext}} Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, ] would be a better place to discuss it. ] (]) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan, claiming that since they died after the band's existence ended and arwe therefore not relevant, even though such details are normal for a band page.
			:I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because ]. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to ] all significant viewpoints should be included ''']]''' 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read ].
			::If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. ] (]) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like from ] which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (] and a ] from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. ''']]''' 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?
			::::Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? ] (]) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A{{pb}}https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 ''']]''' 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::What's the page in the last link? ] (]) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::sanaa uni's journal ''']]''' 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at ] ] (]) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. ] (]) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{talkreflist}}
	It seems to me that Woovee is intent on turning the T.Rex (band) page into a second Marc Bolan page, based on the fan POV of "No Bolan, No T.Rex".

			=== First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at ] and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? ] (]) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Request for Comment - two other members also contributed. Has gone quiet with no further contributions.
	Woovee tried hard to personalise the discussion accusing me of promoting Mickey Finn's T-Rex and X.T.Rex and accusing me of being somehow fraudulent because I use IP addresses and only occasionally use my account (]). Woovee made similar attacks on one of the other two contributors.

			{{Ping\|Abo Yemen\|Javext}} Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. ] (]) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>
			:Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit ''']]''' 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{Ping\|Abo Yemen}} Any updates on this? ] (]) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? ''']]''' 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{Ping\|Abo Yemen}} I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins ''']]''' 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] ''']]''' 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	What is needed is arbitration of some sort. If this is not the appropriate place then please direct me to the right place.

	==== ~~Summary~~ ~~of dispute~~ by ] ====		=== Second statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	The ip says ''"Now matters have escalated and Woovee has deleted the dates/circumstances of deaths of band members other than Bolan''". That's wrong, it hasn't escalated as the current version is the same as the one of on right before the ip opens a rfc, about the same topic/section. -- ] (]) 20:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

			The thread at RSN {{Diff2\|1270464721\|has been archived}}, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? ] (]) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Talk:T. Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section discussion ===
			:I've restored it for a bit wait <span style="text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 1em">] ] (])</span> 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	~~Our rules say~~ : ~~"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"...~~. ~~"Continue on article talk page".~~] (]) 21:00, 9 ~~July~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)		:No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. ] (]) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			===Commenting as a regular editor===
	== http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami ==

			The defenders of the city "were horribly routed."<ref>Azmat Alishah. ." Retrieved January 22, 2025.</ref> ] refers to being "defeated overwhelmingly," signifying a decisive victory for the invading forces. ] (]) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 10:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564136379}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Vicgerami\|10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed. There are several problems with this filing. First, the other editors are not listed. Second, the subject is not properly listed. Third, this appears to be a deletion dispute, and this is not the forum to discuss a dispute over deletion of an article or a draft. It appears that the draft was deleted, not for ], but for being ]. The filing party is advised to ask for advice at ] on how to write a neutral biography. If they actually want to contest a speedy deletion, they may do so at ], but would be better off rewriting the draft. ] (]) 22:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			=== Second statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr) ===
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

			== Urartu ==
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|Vicgerami}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			{{DR case status\|open}}
	I created a page for Peter Perkowski, the most high-profile LGBT attorney present today, suing the Trump Administration in four class-action lawsuits. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, so I'm not sure why or how user: Athaenara accused me of getting paid for creating this page, tagged the profile deletion, ignored my explanation as to why it should remain and subsequently it was deleted. I did NOT, do not and will not be paid to create a Misplaced Pages page. A baseless accusation should not immediately cause a profile submission to dissapear.
			<!-- ] 16:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739378392}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->

			{{drn filing editor\|Bogazicili\|16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

	I wrote back to Athaenara and explained why it should not be deleted, but to no avail.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

	Have several editors read and evaluate the profile of Peter Perkowski. Let them independently decide whether his profile is noteworthy.

	=== http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=905907999&oldid=905896143&title=User talk:Vicgerami discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

	== Talk:Jonathan Haidt ==

	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 19:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564341893}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Chrisvacc\|19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed. The filing editor has not listed the other editors. The other editors should be listed and notified. As a more general comment, this dispute appears to be a tagging war. Disputes over tagging usually indicate that editors have lost sight of the purpose of tags, which is to call attention to the need for improvement of the article. The editors should resume discussion on the talk page of how to improve the article (not merely of what tags to use to argue about improvement of the article). Disruptive editing may be reported at ] or ], but it is better to improve the article. If discussion of how to improve the article is inconclusive. a new request can be made here for moderated discussion to improve the article. ] (]) 21:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Line 851:		Line 173:

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|~~Talk:Jonathan Haidt~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Urartu}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|~~Chrisvacc~~}}		* {{User\|Bogazicili}}
			* {{User\|Skeptical1800}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			Multiple issues discussed in ].
	A few months ago there was some poorly written content on the entry for Psychologist Jonathan Haidt. User Ronz added the "Written like Advert" tag. I saw this and resolved these issues, and after resolving, I removed the tag. A few months later, when user Ronz noticed the tag removed he reverted and put the tag back. Then Ronz began Edit Warring with several editors who attempted to remove the tag saying there was no justification with for it. They kept trying to remove it, saying it looked fine, and he kept putting the tag back. He also added an additional "Conflict of Interest" Tag. His justification was that there were SPA accounts that did some editing, even though there's no evidence those SPA accounts were any type of COI. I attempted to open a discussion on User:Ronz's talk Page, where I linked to the Steven Pinker article because A) Pinker's is one of the articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Good Articles... (Misplaced Pages's list of exemplary articles) and B) Steven Pinker is a scientist comparable to Jonathan Haidt. Since the articles of Steven Pinker (listed as an exemplary article) and Jonathan Haidt's were very much alike, I thought this was an appropriate comparison but User:Ronz was unwilling to compromise. I opened a discussion on the Talk page of the Haidt article, and he still was unwilling to compromise. I compromised and changed the tags to "general cleanup" and "neutrality disputed." When he saw this, he got mad and started Edit Warring again and Tag Bombing, putting a total of 6 tags on the article.

			I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.
	Several other editors agree that the article is fine, but in my opinion, User:Ronz feels he's the prime dictator of these entries. I explained to User:Ronz that matters like these should be handled democratically, but he's been unresponsive to attempts to "Talk" on his Talk Page, and on the main article's Talk Page and prefers to keep reversing everyone's edits and adding numerous inappropriate tags.

			::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
	There's no evidence of a COI. User:Ronz claims that when the article was first starting, someone "Copy and Pasted" parts of the Subject's websites. The tag "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" was used although that was not the case. Most of the Citations are from New York Times, TED, Wall Street Journal, Google Scholar and similar websites. User appears to be adding random tags. Potentially a COI?

			::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

			::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.
	We need an objective observer to see if ANY tags are appropriate for this article. The other editors say that the article needs no tags, but we need an third party observer to verify. Thank you.

			::] (]) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Talk:Jonathan Haidt discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>

	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
	== User talk:River-kind ==

			]
	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 22:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564440184}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|River-kind\|22:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed, for several reasons. First, the filing editor has not listed the article in question properly. Second, the filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. Third, the filing editor appears to be trying to add an unpublished article to an article as a source, but unpublished material does not meet the standards for ]. Fourth, there has not been adequate discussion on any talk page. There was no discussion on article talk pages, and very little discussion on a user talk page. The filing editor should discuss the dispute with other editors on article talk pages. ] (]) 14:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

			Resolve issues with respect to ], ], ], and removal of content
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|User talk:River-kind}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|River-kind}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			==== Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800 ====
	I entered the sentence:
			<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

			::Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.
	For a secular practice derived from the Lotus Sutra, please consider an unpublished article entitled Nichiren Secular - A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good.

			::User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.
	into https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Secular_Buddhism&oldid=906439550 and it was immediately removed. This matter was not resolved in talk.

			::Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			::''"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"''
	None

			::User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

			::''Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.''
	Please advise

			::The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:
	=== User talk:River-kind discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			::''"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"''
	== Talk:Pallava dynasty ==

			::So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).
	{{DR case status\|hold}}
	<!-- ] 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564477983}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|LovSLif\|09:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)}}

			::User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			::Here is the quote in question:
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

			::''"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"''
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|Talk:Pallava dynasty}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|LovSLif}}
	<del>* {{User\|Destroyer27}}</del>
	* {{User\|Nittawinoda}}
	* {{User\|Kautilya3}}
	* {{User\|Abecedare}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			::User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.
	This discussion is bound to the Origination or On the 'Origins of Pallava Dynasty'.
	Very lengthy discussion happened on the Talk page.The discussion was initiated for the addition of Mythological origin. In the course of discussion, the core content of the initial discussion was sidelined and finally ended up pushing a new POV content into the article's Origins section under the term 'Kanchi Theory'.The content is purely based on ].
	I have verified both the edited versions as well as original sources and found the content is against my CONSENSUS.The actuality of 'Kanchi Theory' as an 'origination' is not supported by the sources.
	I believe the 'Possibility of a dynasty which was already existing/originated and later raising to the power in a particular region, post capturing it from other dynasty' cannot be assigned as an origination theory.
	During the discussion,A new etymology section was also created in the article which is again a POV content relying on poor sources.
	The discussion moderated was closed off without the acceptance of all participants.
	I trust DRN team would thoroughly review the sources and its corresponding content and that is why I am raising a dispute over here.I will bind by the final result.

			::''"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."''
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			::User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu
	I have fully supported voluntary moderation by user Kautilya3 but no CONSENSUS arrived at.

			::User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

			::Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. ''"The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."''
	I request DRN team to review the sources and its corresponding content to decide on the actuality of the content written under 'kanchi theory'.

			::and:
	==== Summary of dispute by Destroyer27 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

			::Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 ''"Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."''
	==== Summary of dispute by Nittawinoda ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

			::It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?
	As Kautilya3 has mentioned below, the other editor LovSLif had a dispute with Destroyer27 regarding the origin section of ]. At this point I did my own research and requested that a few more theories regarding the origin of Pallavas be added. Kautilya3 volunteered to moderate the discussion and I must say that he/she did a pretty good job; was very patient and thorough when it came to hearing both sides and clarifying the references. During the discussion it became apparent that LovSLif wanted to keep only theories that were favorable to him/her, that is in this case the Andhra origin theories and the user rejected other theories proposed by other notable historians like for example:

			::Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: ''"Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."''
	1. As per historians ] and ], the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. <ref>{{cite book\|title=A History of India\|author=Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund\|publisher=Psychology Press, 2004\|page=120}}</ref>

			::It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.
	2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam <ref>{{cite book\|title=History and Culture of South India, to 1336 A.D.\|author=H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy\|publisher=Vivek Prakashan, 1975\|page=188}}</ref>

			::To the previous point, there's also the following: ''"Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."''
	I am satisfied and broadly agree with the draft proposed by Kautilya3. As for LovSLif, the editor does not seem to understand primary sources, original research and npov. He/she insisted on interpreting inscriptions and grants on his own and wants to include or reject theories based upon his own interpretation and is adamant that other theories by notable historians must not be included. ] (]) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

			::Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.
	{{reflist-talk}}

			::There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when '''we''' take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?
	==== Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	I got involved with this page when {{U\|Abecedare}} asked me to help to resolve the dispute concerning the origins of the Pallava dynasty. The dispute at that time was between Destroyer27 and LovSLif. Later it became one between Nittawinoda and LovSLif. I asked both the editors to recommend high-level ] that are at the level of "History of India". When the sources they presented were not of this kind, I did my own search and found two multi-volume Histories of India<ref>The two are:
	* '']'' and
	* ''A Comprehensive History of India'' sponsored by the ].
	</ref> which have chapters devoted to the Pallava dynasty contributed by top Indian historians of the 1960s. The two sets of scholars took opposite points of view. So I said that both the viewpoints were notable and proposed content summarising thei respective viewpoints with ]. Nittawinoda was satisfied with my summaries but LovSLif was apparently not satisfied. The nature of his objections has not been clear from what he writes. Thus we ended up here.

			::These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.
	The content that I proposed is now on the main page: ]. -- ] (]) 11:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
			] (]) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Urartu discussion ===
	I did not get involved with the ] section. Any disputes concerning it are not yet ripe for DRN. -- ] (]) 11:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{reflist-talk}}

	==== Summary of dispute by Abecedare ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
	My role in this dispute has been to (1) as an admin, warn/guide the participants to try to keep the discussion on-track, and (2) request Kautilya3, as an knowledgeable editor in the area uninvolved in the original dispute between LovSLif and Destroyer27, to take a look at the content issues (aside: and I appreciate the time they have devoted to the issue in response!).

	I don't have any pre-set views on the central content issue(s) ''per se'', and the DRN should be able to proceed without my participation. ] (]) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

	=== Talk:Pallava dynasty discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	*'''Volunteer comment''' just chiming in to point out that one of the parties to this dispute, {{u\|Destroyer27}} is currently indef-blocked for socking and looking at their talk page I would not expect them to come back any time soon. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - The preconditions for moderated discussion have been met, in that there has been lengthy discussion on the article talk page, and the other parties have been notified. There has been an effort at moderated discussion already, which did not result in resolution. A volunteer is requested to try to conduct a second round of moderated discussion. I am not optimistic that a second round of moderated discussion will work better than the first, but we will try. ] (]) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
	====Possible zeroth statement by moderator====
	I will ask a few questions to see whether moderated discussion is feasible. It appears that one of the participants in the previous mediation was ], who was attempting to mediate, and another was ], who is an administrator who sometimes facilitates mediation, so that they were not principals. One of the principals was ]. Was the dispute between LovSLif and ], or with ], who is a blocked sockpuppet? If it was between LovSLif and Nittawinoda, will each of them please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think was the dispute, and how the article needs to be improved? Also, if LovSLif is not satisfied with the mediation, will they please state, in one paragraph, how they disagree with the mediation? Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Please reply within 36 hours.
	] (]) 04:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	====Zeroth answers by editors====

			{{u\|Skeptical1800}}, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.
	*Nittawinoda's comments
	As I mentioned above, I agree with Kautilya3's draft of the origin section in the article ]. Currently I do not have a problem as this is what is in the article page ]. In addition, I want the following theories added if not already,

			I had reverted your recent changes based on ] and had removed content I added that you object to based on ], so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? ] (]) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	1. As per historians ] and ], the original nucleus and domain of the Pallavas was Tondaimandalam, which served as the base for their power. <ref>{{cite book\|title=A History of India\|author=Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund\|publisher=Psychology Press, 2004\|page=120}}</ref>

			::Undid recent edits, as requested.
	2. Prof. R. Sathianathaier also maintains that the Pallavas originated from Tondaimandalam <ref>{{cite book\|title=History and Culture of South India, to 1336 A.D.\|author=H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy\|publisher=Vivek Prakashan, 1975\|page=188}}</ref>

			::] (]) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
	3. The ancestor of the Pallavas was born out of a union of Aswattama and naga princess (already in article and source provided by Kautilya3)
			:::{{u\|Skeptical1800}}, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. ] (]) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)===
	4. "The immediate conquerors of the Andhras were the Pallavas who seemed to have risen to power suddenly in the south. Starting from Kanchi, their capital, they extended their empire northwards, till it included Vengi Nadu."<ref>{{cite book\|title=A History of Telugu Literature\|author=Chenchiah, Bhujanga\|publisher=Asian Educational Services, 1988\|page=21}}</ref>
			I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read ] and ]. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a ]. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.

			Are there any other questions?
	5. As per historian C.Rasanayagam, "The Pallavas are considered to be the descendants of Tondaiman Ilam Tiraiyan the offspring of Chola King Killivalavan and naga princess Pilivalai, the latter being the daughter of king Valaivanan of ManiPallavam. The dynasty took its name (Pallava) after the name of the mother's kingdom manipallavam."<ref>{{cite book\|title=Ancient India\|author=Vidya Dhar Mahajan\|publisher=S. Chand, 1962\|page=532,533}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|title=History of Ancient India\|author=Rama Shankar Tripathi\|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967\|page=442}}</ref>
			] (]) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

			===Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)===
	As per my understanding, LovSlif wants the Kanchi theory scrapped from the article. If he wants the whole section removed then I object but if it is just the nomenclature, for example, I do not mind renaming the "Kanchi theory" to something like "Tondaimandalam origin theory" etc. Points 1, 2 and 3 above are somewhat there in the current version. I would like to add points 4 and 5 if possible. Thanks, ] (]) 15:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
			I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:
			* Removal of content from the lead. {{tq\|Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".}}
			* Removal of content from ]: {{tq\|The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".}}
			* Removal of this content, or where it should be put: {{tq\|These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.}}
			* Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to . Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: ] and ]. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
			* I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. ] (]) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.
			{{hat\|Comment on content, not contributors. ] (]) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with.
			{{hab}}
			Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:
			:::* Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article ''should not'' include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages ''unless'' the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). '''The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely.'''" The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the '''Language''' section. It ''should not'' be in the lead.
			:::*Article ''should not'' include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of ] as it contradicts numerous ] included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::*Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.
			:::] (]) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			===First statement by volunteer (Urartu)===
	{{reflist-talk}}
			Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read ] first, and then report the conduct at ], but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.

			Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the ]? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of ] issues, or ], or other reasons.
	*LovSLif's comments

			Please reread ] and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.
	I want to clarify that I do not want complete Kanchi theory paragraph struck.I want the term <s>Kanchi Theory</s> to be excluded as this is not the region of origin.It was the the region occupied at later point to strengthen their position.I also disagree adding D.C Sircar as 'proponent of Kanchi theory'.I have provided my explanation on the same at .

			Are there any other questions? ] (]) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	I believe below is what should be added to make the article balanced. Here is what should be added.

			:I agree to only discuss content.
	1. It is agreed that the maternal side of the Pallavas is the Nagas. Well the Nagas were likely Telugu speakers. As per the work of D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, who were published by Dravidian University (partly funded by Tamil Nadu's government): "The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is found to be in the earliest Tamil-grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th Century AD)". <ref>{{cite book\|title=Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture\|author=D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa\|publisher=Dravidian University., 2006\|page=257}}</ref> B. Ramaraju similarly says that the Nagas were closely connected with Andhra. To quote him, "This is a prehistoric celebration of Naga or serpent-worship observed throughout Andhra. Buddhistic and other records mention that once Naga tribes inhabited this part of the country called 'Nagabhumi' (land of the serpent god). Every village in Andhra has some or other Naga idol carved in stone or wood.” <ref>{{cite book\|title=Folklore of Andhra Pradesh\|author= B.Ramaraju\|publisher=National Book Trust., 1978\|page=60}}</ref> Hence, this should be added in.

			:There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that ''"'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'"''. While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to ], as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu.
	2. I want the Etymology section clarified. The word Pallava is clearly of Sanskrit origin and this should be clearly mentioned. I also want to mention that according to the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava. This also puts into question their so-called Chola heritage, which they never acknowledged.

			:Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing.
	3. I want it to be clearly mentioned that no Tamil inscriptions were issued by the Pallavas, that are found to date, until the late 6th century or early 7th century, which is well after they were established. <ref>{{cite book\|title=Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history\|author= T.V Mahalingam\|publisher=Asia Pub. House., 1969\|page=22}}</ref>

			:Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): ''"Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the '''others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground'''."''
	4. I want to include K.R Subramanian as another historian that supports the Andhra origin theory.

			:Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: ''"According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van."'' The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology.
	In regards to ]'s recommendations:
	- Firstly, Chenchiah Bhujanga is a Telugu language scholar. A prior scholar of the side that I am advocating for was sidelined because he was not a historian but a literary figure. Chenchiah Bhujanga fits in to the same category more or less. His claim to fame is a book about a history of Telugu Literature and he is not a trained a historian, but a scholar on the Telugu language. I will not agree to include him in this article.

			:Here is the relevant passage: ''Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.''
	- Secondly, Aswattama liason is a legend and not History.Also, the claim about the Pallavas being the child of the Cholas in untenable at best. TV. Mahanlingam, note a Tamilian, writes "The explanation of Naccinarkkiniyar that Ilantiraiyan was an illegitimate son of a Cola king and a Naga princess is "patently absurd". <ref>{{cite book\|title=Kāñcīpuram in early South Indian history\|author= T.V Mahalingam\|publisher=Asia Pub. House., 1969\|page=16}}</ref> In fact, given the context of the conflicts between the Pallavas and the Cholas, no wonder the Tamil commentators made the Pallavas out to be illegitimate sons.

			:Another relevant passage from this source is here:
			:''Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).''

			:The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: ''Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili'' and ''Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili''. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf
	{{reflist-talk}}

			:The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere.
	] (]) 07:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

			:The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: ''"A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."''
	====First statement by moderator====
	Okay. We will try moderated discussion. Please read ] and follow it. Do not edit the article. Be civil and concise. Remember that ] is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements have only one value, to make the person posting them feel better, but they do not clarify the issue. Comment on content, not on contributors. (We seem to be focusing on content at this time, which is good.)

			:The source was the following: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ This study was published in ''Science''.
	The statements made by the editors are long and need to be trimmed. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made at this time having to do with the Origin section? Also, I understand that there are also issues about the Etymology. Will each editor please identify one change that they want made to the Etymology?

			:Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine):
	First statements by editors should be addressed to me. Do not reply to each other. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion which you may use for that purpose.

			:''"An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. '''Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.'''"''
	] (]) 17:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

			:Also this:
	====First statements by editors====

			:''"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." ''''"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"''.
	*Statement by Nittawinoda
	{{ping\|Robert McClenon}}

			:The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province."
	I would like the following theory to be added to the origin section:

			:Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: ''"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). '''The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely.'''"''
	"Some historians like C Rasanayagam, M.Srinivasa Iyengar have stated that the Pallavas were descendants of ] who was the son of Chola king ] and Naga princess Pilivalai, daughter of Valaivanan of ] in ]. The dynasty thus came to be called after the mother's native place.<ref>{{cite book\|title=History and Culture of the Tamils: From Prehistoric Times to the President's Rule\|author=Raju Kalidos\|publisher=Vijay Publications, 1976\|page=80}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rOVpOG6MPMcC&pg=PA442&dq=tiraiyan+descendants+pallavas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIrKzohL_jAhUTi3AKHZZDBkEQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=tiraiyan%20descendants%20pallavas&f=false\|title=History of Ancient India\|author=Rama Shankar Tripathi\|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1967\|page=442}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|title=Social and cultural history of Tamilnad, Volume 1\|author=N. Subrahmanian\|publisher=Ennes, 1993\|page=71}}</ref>. According to the ''Ulas''(historical poems in honor of Chola kings) written by poet ], Killivalavan is said to have married a Naga princess by entering the ''bilvadara''(cave) and also it is known that Tiraiyan was the son of a Chola prince who married the Naga princess, Pilivalai by entering the ''bilvadara'' in Nagapattinam. So that Tiraiyan was the son of Killivalavan is not without force".<ref>{{cite book\|title=Saiva art and architecture in South India\|author=C. Krishna Murthy\|publisher=Sundeep Prakashan, 1985\|page=8}}</ref>

			:Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.] (]) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
	I would like the following change to Etymology section:

			===First statements by editors (Urartu)===
	"As per historians ] and ], the name ''Pallava'' which means ''leaves or foliage'' is the Sanskrit equivalent of the the ] word ''tondai'' which designates their original domain, namely Tondaimandalam."<ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TPVq3ykHyH4C&pg=PA120&dq=pallavas+natives&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7oueLl57jAhXKpY8KHRb4DO4Q6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=pallavas%20natives&f=false\|title=A History of India\|author=Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund\|publisher=Psychology Press, 2004\|page=120}}</ref>

			== Wesean Student Federation ==
	{{reflist-talk}}

			{{DR case status\|hold}}
	] (]) 18:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
			<!-- ] 14:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739542861}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->

			{{drn filing editor\|EmeraldRange\|14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*Statement by LovSLif
	{{ping\|Robert McClenon}}

	Among other changes, the first and foremost change I want to the Origins sections is the identification of the Nagas as Telugus. Here is the phrasing: "As per the work of various scholars, such as D. Ananda Naidu,Gangisetti Lakshminarayana, and V. Gopalakrsna, the language spoken by the Nagas, who were the maternal line of the Pallavas, was likely Telugu. B. Ramaraju notes that what is now Andhra was called "Nagabhumi", which means land of the Nagas."

	In the etymology section, I want the following. The word Pallava is a Sanskrit word that means "leaves or foliage. Tondai is the Tamil equivalent of the word. As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava.

	] (]) 03:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Back-and-forth discussion====

	*Dispute LovSLif's statement (Rebuttal by Nittawinoda)

	{{ping\|Robert McClenon}} I dispute the following claims by LovSLif.
	:1. ''Identification of the Nagas as Telugus'' - This appears to be original research. I quote from the source provided by LovSLif above " D. Ananda Naidu, Gaṅgiśeṭṭi Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa, Vi Gōpālakr̥ṣṇa. Perspectives of South Indian History and Culture. Dravidian University., 2006. p. 257.":

	"In Andhradesa, the Rakshasas, mentioned in the Ramayana, at a later date, appear to have acquired the name of Nagas. The language of the Nagas appears to be Telugu, which the earliest reference to which is to be found in the earliest Tamil- grammar, the Tolkappiyam (5th century A.D.)."

	What do the Nagas of ] have to do with the Pallavas? This is completely out of context and has nothing to do with the Pallavas or the origin of the Pallavas for that matter. The Pallavas never mentioned that they married a Naga lady of Telugu origin. In fact, some scholars consider ] to be the progenitor of the Pallavas and he is said to be the son born out of the union of Chola king Killi and Naga princess Pilivalai of Manipallavam in Sri Lanka. This refers to the ] and they definitely did not speak Telugu. I request the moderator to review the source more closely before making a decision.

	:2. ''As per the Velurpalaiyam Copperplates, the first Pallava ruler's father was named Chutu Pallava'' - Once again this original research. This is based upon the user's interpretation that Virakurcha, whose father is mentioned as Chutu Pallava, was the first Pallava ruler. As per "History of the Pallavas of Kanchi by R. Gopalan, edited by Sakkottai Krishnaswami Aiyangar, page 51, ", I quote, "Again in the Velurpalaiyam plates, it is '''not stated''' that Virakurcha who married the naga princess was the first member of the family of the Pallavas..". Moreover some historians like Vijaya Ramasamy, R.Gopalan and many more(mentioned above in my first statement) consider that Tondaiman Ilam tiraiyan was the progenitor of the Pallava dynasty.<ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ALUvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA154&dq=ilandiraiyan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDrce0qsHjAhXEmuYKHfGPDOoQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=ilandiraiyan&f=false\|title=Historical Dictionary of the Tamils\|author=Vijaya Ramaswamy, Jawaharlal Nehru University\|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield, 2017\|page=154}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=imhDAAAAYAAJ&q=ilandiraiyan+pallavas&dq=ilandiraiyan+pallavas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi954WHq8HjAhUr8XMBHd7HAScQ6AEINjAC\|title=Indian Antiquary, Volume 40\|author=Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland\|page=134}}</ref><ref>{{cite book\|url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wnVuAAAAMAAJ&dq=ilanthiraiyan+pallavas&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ilanthirayan++\|title=Tamil Nadu, a real history\|publisher=Ratna Publications, 2005\|page=89}}</ref> This being the case, we should not add Chutu Pallava as the father of the first Pallava ruler.

	{{reflist-talk}}

	] (]) 16:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Second statement by moderator====
	I think that it will be necessary to place this discussion on hold so that we can find another moderator. I have not yet placed it on hold, pending verification of the need for another moderator. However, it appears that the editors expect me, the moderator, to "review the source more closely before making a decision". As a moderator, I do not review the sources because I expect the parties to be able to explain to me what the sources say. Some moderators will review the sources; some expect the editors to present the information to each other and to the moderator. My concept of the role of the moderator is to facilitate discussion between the editors, not to make any decisions. If the editors expect that the moderator will decide on the content, a different moderator is needed.

	Each editor should state briefly whether they are satisfied with my concept of the role of the moderator. If either editor is not satisfied, I will have to try to find another moderator, but I am not optimistic about finding another moderator.

	I will remind the editors that ] apply to disputes about ].

	Each editor may also describe one more point that they would like changed in the article.
	] (]) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Second statements by editors====

	*Statement by Nittawinoda
	{{ping\|Robert McClenon}} Yes, you are right. I would like a moderator, preferably someone familiar with India/Indian history, who can review the sources and come to a conclusion, similar to how {{ping\|Kautilya3}} did on the article talk page before the other editor came here. This is because, I believe the other editor, LovSLif, is claiming things that are not stated in the sources and presenting his original research. Thanks, ] (]) 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	====Third statement by moderator====
	This dispute is placed on hold while we try to find a moderator. ] (]) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	== Talk:Natalia Dyer ==

	{{DR case status\|resolved}}
	<!-- ] 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564530966}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Hitcher vs. Candyman\|23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Resolved. There has been agreement before opening the dispute that reliable sources confirm that the actress was born in 1995. ] (]) 04:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Line 1,108:		Line 355:

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|~~Talk:Natalia~~ ~~Dyer~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Wesean Student Federation}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|~~Hitcher vs. Candyman~~}}		* {{User\|EmeraldRange}}
	* {{User\|~~Broccoli and Coffee~~}}		* {{User\|Flyingphoenixchips}}
	* {{User\|~~Thelonggoneblues~~}}		* {{User\|Kautilya3}}
	* {{User\|Magnolia54}}
	* {{User\|Jaqen}}
	* {{User\|Muzilon}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".
	There seems to be a factual conflict concerning the age and birth year of Natalia Dyer. According to conflicting sources, several of them claim Dyer is a 24-year-old born in 1995 whereas others claim she is a 22-year old born in 1997. Certain editors such as Broccoli and Coffee, Thelonggoneblues and myself believe she was born in 1995 whereas other editors such as Magnolia54 and Jaqen believe she was born in 1997. I will admit I used to believe she was born in 1997.

			Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

			Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)
	As a compromise, Muzilon, Broccoli and Coffee and myself have agreed to add an endnote to the article mentioning both the 1997 sources and the 1995 sources.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you ~~think~~ we ~~can~~ ~~help~~?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

			],
	I think you can help by explaining why the endnote is a good compromise.
			],
			],
			]

			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
	=== Talk:Natalia Dyer discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	Please disregard this notice. We've officially agreed that Dyer was born in 1995 based on this . ] (]) 01:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

			Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes
	== User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright_problem:_Kenyon_Farrow ==

			==== Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips ====
	{{DR case status\|closed}}
	<!-- ] 04:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564634540}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Aquariusveritas\|04:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{DRN archive top\|Closed. This noticeboard is not the forum for appealing a decision on copyright. The decision of the administrators at ] is final. ] (]) 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

			My argument was basically that this constitutes ] as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". '''Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope.''' Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice '''(Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources)''', and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, '''I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.'''
	Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

			==== Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 ====
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|User talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright_problem:_Kenyon_Farrow}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|Aquariusveritas}}
	* {{User\|Justlettersandnumbers}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

	And investigation of potential copyright issue has been lodged. The copyright issue surrounds the listing of books written by and awards received by the subject. I believe the copyright investigation is incorrect and was neither investigated or in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, corrected. I would like to receive an investigation on the article in question and cleared if no copyright infringement is found. If there is a copyright infringement, I would like to receive help on how to resolve it.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

	I have corresponded with Justlettersandnumbers, reviewed the copyright complaint and applied corrections where I found validity to the issue. I have also questioned the nature of the claim and issued the judgment that no copyright infringement is in place because listing the title of books by publication date cannot be copyrighted.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

	I think that you can review the claim and make a judgment on the validity of what of the dispute. If their is validity to the dispute, provide suggestions on how to solve the problem. If the dispute is unwarranted, remove the block on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Kenyon_Farrow

	==== Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

	=== ~~User~~ ~~talk:Aquariusveritas#Copyright_problem:_Kenyon_Farrow~~ discussion ===		=== Wesean Student Federation discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - This noticeboard is not a forum for resolving copyright disputes. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violation very seriously (even if no one else seems to care about copyright violations), and the judgment of the administrators at ] is final. ] (]) 06:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	{{DRN archive bottom}}

	== ~~Murder~~ ~~of Hannah Graham~~ ==		== Jehovah's Witnesses ==

	{{DR case status}}		{{DR case status\|open}}
	<!-- ] 12:44, 1 ~~August~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|~~1564663448~~}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->		<!-- ] 18:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1739645857}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|~~Chaheel Riens~~\|12:44, 18 ~~July~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)}}		{{drn filing editor\|Clovermoss\|18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}}

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 1,179:		Line 401:

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|~~Murder~~ ~~of Hannah Graham~~}}		* {{pagelinks\|Jehovah's Witnesses}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|~~Chaheel Riens~~}}		* {{User\|Clovermoss}}
	* {{User\|~~Berean Hunter~~}}		* {{User\|Jeffro77}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

			There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.
	Berean Hunter believes that a comment about the health of the convicted murderer should be in the lede, even though it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

			<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
	Chaheel Riens believe that it is not relevant, and while it could possibly be placed elsewhere in the article with some work, it is certainly not worthy of the lede, and without extra work not worthy of the article itself.

			]
	Berean Hunter has refused to remove the information while discussion is ongoing, and reverted attempts to remove in the meantime.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''~~Have~~ you ~~tried~~ to resolve ~~this~~ ~~previously~~?'''</span>		<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

			I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.
	Started discussion on the talk page, which has not progressed

			==== Summary of dispute by Jeffro77 ====
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

	Arbitration between editors, content, and clarification of the meaning of BRD - whether it has been interpreted correctly in this instance.

	==== Summary of dispute by Berean Hunter ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

			In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at ], that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== Murder of Hannah Graham discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. ] (]) 15:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - It appears that ] says that this dispute does not need to be mediated at this point. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. ] (]) 17:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
	::I would still like clarification of the BRD process and whether it has been correctly interpreted in this instance. ] (]) 07:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Volunteer Note''' - Obviously the ] has not been applied properly in this case, because we have a disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. I do not intend to act as a judge to decide whether one of the editors is at fault or whether the disagreement simply happened. I see that another editor has offered an opinion. This noticeboard isn't here to decide whether and where there was fault. ] (]) 19:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

	== Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup ==

	{{DR case status}}
	<!-- ] 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1564852456}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
	{{drn filing editor\|Super ninja2\|17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)}}

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
	* {{pagelinks\|Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
	* {{User\|Super ninja2}}
	* {{User\|Anbans 585}}
	* {{User\|Wikiemirati}}
	* {{User\|Masgouf}}
	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


	Hello. Me, ], ] and ] are in dispute about ]. Anbans 585, Wikiemirati and I have ] and the discussion resulted in but Anbans 585 and Masgouf still disagree with the shape of the paragraph and Wikiemirati insists on adding ''The National'' claim that "they have photos of fans waving Qatar flag without being arrested" and refused to compromise, although Anbans 585 and I agreed on removing and concluded that it does not comply with Misplaced Pages policies but I agreed on adding it eventually and the text but Wikiemirati and Masgouf think that the rephrase is biased.

	I'm not sure if the final shape of the paragraph complies with Misplaced Pages policies and I wish your help to resolve this dispute.

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

	Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests#2019 AFC Asian Cup#Qatar football shirt fan incident

	<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

	You might try to give a neutral-third party opinion


	==== Summary of dispute by Anbans 585 ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

	==== Summary of dispute by Wikiemirati ====
	Dispute started on 15th of July with ] non-NPOV edit and rephrasing of long standing information . The user was reverted twice for non-NPOV rephrasing and the initial stable version was restored. The user argued on the talk page about 1-removing "According to the Guardian", 2-removing a cited source from ''The National'', 3-including "the fan was beaten",4-including details from the statement to "clarify why the police arrested him and what excuse they are counting on to justify their action" 5-including a statement by British FCO. I agreed with reason 1,3, and 4. Reason 2 was unjustifiable, reason 5 was unrelated to the incident. Due to the user's conflicting edits, the ] was restored by ] due to the dispute . After discussion in the talk page and agreeing with the users additions, I have edited to this . However, the user once again rephrased the text to their own liking and their edits have been reverted twice, again. Also note the user has thrown some person attacks on calling me a "liar" and accusations of COI, saying "we can say, without doubt, that his edits go under WP:Conflicts of interest", however I am assuming good faith and did not want to open an ANI. Also note the user broke ], which I again assumed good faith and did not want to open an AN3. Sorry for the long paragraph. --] (]) 17:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

	==== Summary of dispute by Masgouf ====
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

	=== ~~Talk:2019~~ ~~AFC Asian Cup~~ discussion ===		=== Jehovah's Witnesses discussion ===
	<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>		<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
			Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? <span style="font-family:Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::That sounds alright to me. ] ] 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—] <span style="padding:2px 4px;background-color:#eee;color:#000;border:1px solid #000;font-size:12px;border-radius:4px;">]</span> 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:51, 22 January 2025

Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	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
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	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
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?	Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution 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 help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.	Become a volunteer 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 remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in 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. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status\|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top\|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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 help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

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 remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in 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.

Open/close quick reference

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	22 days, 4 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Manuductive (t)	15 hours
Urartu	In Progress	Bogazicili (t)	7 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 3 hours	Skeptical1800 (t)	2 hours
Wesean Student Federation	On hold	EmeraldRange (t)	5 days, 9 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	5 days, 9 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	5 days, 9 hours
Jehovah's Witnesses	In Progress	Clovermoss (t)	4 days, 4 hours	Steven Crossin (t)	3 days, 11 hours	Jeffro77 (t)	2 days, 23 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.

Archived DRN Cases

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

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)

– Discussion in progress. Filed by Abo Yemen on 19:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Abo Yemen (talk · contribs)
Javext (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Ever since I've translated that page from both the Arabic and Portuguese wiki, Javext (a member of the Portuguese Navy) has been trying to impose the Portuguese POV of the battle and only the Portuguese POV. They have removed sources that represent the other POV of the battle and dismissed them as "unreliable" (Which is simply not true per WP:RSP). He keeps on claiming that because the Portuguese's goal was to sack the city (Which is just a claim, none of the sources cited say that sacking the city was their goal. The sources just say that all they did was sack the city and got forced to leave), which doesn't even make sense; The Portuguese failed their invasion and were forced out of the city. They lost the war even if they claimed to have accomplished their goal.

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

Talk:Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)#Infobox "Result"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The article should include both POVs. Simply removing the other POV is against the infamous WP:NPOV

Summary of dispute by Javext

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

Greetings, the debate that the other user "Abo Yemen" and I had was mainly about the result of the Battle, but also about a lot of the content of the article so at that time I decided to bring the topic to the talk page. All the sources that "Abo Yemen" used to cite the content that I removed (the ones I didn't remove, I found them reliable) from the article were clearly unreliable, this has nothing to do with my personal bias or that I don't want to show the Yemeni "POV", if you look at the sources he used you can notice that the authors are completely unknown, their academic backgrounds are also not known. In contrast, when you take a look at MY sources (whether I used them in the main article or in the talk page) they are all clearly reliable, all the authors and their academic backgrounds are known, plus their nationalities vary, so I find it very hard how they would be biased and how I am trying to push just the "Portuguese POV".

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim. The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory, see:

-"However, the town was found partly deserted, and with very limited pickings for the Portuguese raiding party; nevertheless, it was sacked, 'by which some of them still became rich'"

-"For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage"

-"The Portuguese fleet proceeded towards al-Shihr, a sea-port in Hadramawt, which they sacked." In this source they also include the report of the author of Tarikh al-Shihri, who describes the event, I quote: "On Thursday 9 th of Rabi’ II (929/25 February 1523), the abandoned Frank, may God abandon him, came to the port of al-Shihr with about nine sailing- ships, galliots, and grabs, and, landing in the town on Friday, set to fighting a little after dawn. Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, the 11 Franks looting it first, then after them the musketeers (rumah) and, the soldiers and the hooligans of the town (Shaytin al-balad), in conquence of which people (khala ik) were reduced to poverty."

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy, see:

-"Anthony Disney has argued that Portuguese actions in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the first decades of the sixteenth century, can hardly be characterized as anything other than piracy, or at least state-sponsored corsairing.' Most conquest enterprises were privately funded, and the crown got portions of seized booty, whether taken on land or at sea. Plus there were many occasions in which local Portuguese governors sponsored expeditions with no other aim than to plunder rich ports and kingdoms, Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist. This sort of licensing of pillage carried on into the early seventeenth century, although the Portuguese never matched the great inland conquests of the Spanish in the Americas. Booty taken at sea was subject to a twenty percent royal duty."

-"Their maritime supremacy had piracy as an essential element, to reinforce it."

So, with this in mind, we can conclude that just because the Portuguese didn't occupy the city, it doesn't mean it was an inconclusive outcome or a defeat, so unless "Abo Yemen" is able to provide a reliable source where it states the Portuguese had the objective to conquer this city and that they weren't just there to plunder it, the result of the battle should remain as "Portuguese victory". The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off. (as already stated in the sources above)

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

Thank you for whoever reads this. Javext (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed.

Now going to the Result of the battle issue; "Abo Yemen" believes the result should be "Indecisive" or something like that but has so far failed to provide any reliable source or even any "source" at all to sustain that claim.

First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research.

The only thing he has done was stating what is most likely his own personal opinion, whilst I have so many sources to back up that the result was indeed a Portuguese victory

Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here.Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;
For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.
Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won.Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders.

I remember that he gave the excuse that just because the Portuguese sacked and then left the town it can't count as a victory. It would only count as a victory if they had occupied the city. This is easily debunkable as Portuguese activity in the Indian Ocean (especially in the 16th century) can be classified as piracy

Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded.

The city was successfully sacked and the inhabitants were unable to drive the Portuguese off.

Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out...

It should also be noted that, a few months ago, this user was unable to continue to have a reasonable discussion in the talk page about this topic and after being debunked and having nothing else to respond he decided to insult Portugal and I quote, "well that's actually surprising. I'll be sure to pray for your country's downfall to be harder than ours. Have a good night!"- Abo Yemen, 26 August 2024.

I told you on the talkpage that I was busy because I was traveling and couldn't bring out a sensible discussion. I do believe that the last message I sent during that month wasn't constructive and I have struck it out. I am sorry about it. Happy New Year to both you, Jav, and the volunteer reading this Abo Yemen ✉ 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"The first paragraph is just a bad way of justifying the removal and dismissal of the reliability of those sources without referring to any of Misplaced Pages's policies. None of the sources that I've used contradicted any of the RSs that Javext had used. In fact, Jav had removed all of those sources which cited the military leaders of the Kathiri army but for some reason kept their names (This shows how he was just removing everything from the article indiscriminately). He also removed sections from the article like the special:diff/1266430566#Losses and special:diff/1266430566#Cultural significance sections which were both well cited and had no reason to be removed."

Did you even read what I said? All the content I removed was cited by clearly unreliable sources, their authors and their academic backgrounds are unknown. I could assume that some random person got into that website and wrote whatever, without any prior research. Unless you can prove me otherwise and show us who the authors are, their academic backgrounds and all the information that proves they are in fact reliable scholarship sources, they shouldn't be used to cite content for Misplaced Pages. According to WP:RS, the creator and the publisher of the sources affect their reliability.

"First of all, I wasn't the first guy who brought up the "Inconclusive" solution, it was Jaozinhoanaozinho (see special:diff/1265560783). I have agreed to that solution trying to find a middle ground. This whole thing started with the result parameter of the infobox, he cited two sources in the infobox, one from the "Standford" University Press (which does NOT say anything about the Portuguese winning the battle and is just using the source to make it seem legit. Nowhere in the source does it clearly say that "the Portuguese have won the battle") and the other is a Portuguese-language book which I have no access to and he doesn't show a quote where it says that "the Portuguese have won the battle". This is just original research."

You are right, you wanted the result to be "Kathiri victory" which is even worse. But in fact, due to pressure, you ended up accepting that the "Inconclusive" result was better. The source from Standford University doesn't state the Portuguese won? Are you serious? It literally states the Portuguese successfully attacked and pillaged the city. This wasn't an ordinary battle, the title of the article can be misleading, it was more of a raid/sack then a proper battle and that's why no scholarship will say in exact words "the Portuguese have won the battle". There was only 2 sources cited in the infobox but I belive that's enough, you can't accuse me of only having 2 sources, since I provided more in the talk page.

"Source 1: A book about "The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama" (literally the book's title, I don't think I need to explain it any further); Doesn't say anything about the Portuguese winning the war. Oh yeah and just for the record here, Jav claims that the Portuguese's goal wasn't to capture the city but to sack it. Then please explain why they invaded the exact same city after the 1523 battle twice in 1531 and in 1548? Something doesn't make any sense here."

What's wrong with the book's title? How does that invalidate the source?? It states the Portuguese were raiding the city and sacked it, once again you won't find a source that states exactly "the Portuguese won the battle" because it wasn't a proper field battle or something like that but more of a raid/sack. This doesn't mean the Portuguese lost or that the outcome was inconclusive. What's wrong if they invaded this city other times, literally YEARS after this event. The commanders and leaders changed, goals and motivations change..

"Source 2: Definitely better than the first one. I actually have no problems with using it in the article, just not the way you did;

'For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq.'

Focus on the word "claiming". The source never showed that part as a fact, unlike what you did in the article. The source never claims that the Portuguese have won."

I already responded to this above

"Sources 3 and 4 say nothing about a Portuguese victory. The city suffered casualties (just like any city would if attacked) and defended itself from the invaders."

Hello?? "defended itself from the invaders" - Can you explain how the source literally states: "Not one of the people was able to withstand him: on the contrary they were horribly routed……………………. The town was shamefully plundered, "

"Just because the Portuguese were doing acts of piracy in the region doesn't mean that they weren't trying to capture the cities there. See Battle of Socotra and battle of Aden (1586), both of which are Portuguese raids on cities in the same region where they tried capturing the city and succeeded."

I could say the same thing to you. If the Portuguese committed acts of piracy and just went into coastal cities to just plunder them and leave, why wouldn't this be another case of piracy? See how this can be a bad argument? You ignored the part where I asked for you to give me a source where it states the objective was to capture the city? Look at this source (in Portuguese) about Portuguese piracy in the Indian Ocean that states Al-Shihr, among other coastal ports, suffered from frequent Portuguese incursions that aimed to sack the city's goods back to the Estado da Índia: "Este podia ainda engrossar graças às incursões que eram levadas a cabo em cidades portuárias como Zeila e Barbora, na margem africana, ou Al‑Shihr, na costa do Hadramaute; isto, claro, quando as previdentes populações não as abandonavam, carregando os haveres de valor, ao terem notícia da proximidade das armadas do Estado da Índia."

"Are you actually serious? Apart from the fact that all the sources that I've used in the article which you have removed clearly say that the inhabitants "were ABLE to drive the Portuguese off" (keep in mind that not all of the Arabic sources were Yemeni sources) "(as already stated in the sources above)" None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..."

I already stated multiple times why the sources I removed from the article were unreliable and what you should do to prove to us that they are in fact reliable and meet[REDACTED] standards. I am not going back-and-forth anymore. "None of them say anything about the shihris not being able to drive the invaders out..." Sorry but the last one did, which you chose to ignore it. If the Portuguese successfully attacked and sacked the city you can extrapolate that they weren't driven out.. Javext (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read and indicate your acceptance of Misplaced Pages:DRN Rule D. Be civil, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and comment on content, not contributors. Please note that discussions and edits relating to infoboxes are a contentious topic; by agreeing to these rules, you agree that you are WP:AWARE of this.

I would like to ask the editors to briefly state what changes they want to the article (or what they want to leave the same) and why (including sources). Please keep in mind WP:OR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

I have read and am willing to follow WP:DRND. I am now aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic.
(Do we state what changes we want now?) Abo Yemen ✉ 13:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Yes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright,
Changes that I want to be made:

I want the old article section hierarchy and text back, especially the sourced stuff
The infobox should Include the Mahra Sultanate with the Portuguese as suggested by the source 2 which Javext provided above and the quote that he used from the text
As much as I want the result to be "Kathiri victory" as per the sources used on the old revision, I am willing to compromise and keep It as "Inconclusive" and add below it that other battles between the Portuguese and the Kathiris took place a few years later in the same city (talking about Battle of al-Shihr (1531) and Battle of al-Shihr (1548)).

Abo Yemen ✉ 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I have read everything and I am willing to follow the rules, I am also aware that infoboxes are a contentious topic. For now, I don't want any changes. I want the article to remain as it is now. Javext (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Is the root of the issue whether the sources are reliable? If so, WP:RSN would be a better place to discuss it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that removing huge chunks of well-cited text is an issue of the reliability of the sources and is more of Jav removing it because he doesn't like it. None of the text (esp from sections from the old article like the Cultural Significance and Losses, which had the names of the leaders that are still in the infobox) had any contradictions with the sources that Jav had brought up and even if they did, according to WP:NPOV all significant viewpoints should be included Abo Yemen ✉ 16:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Look man, you fail to prove how the sources I removed from the article were reliable, you just instantly assume bad faith from me. How am I, or any other editor supposed to know a "source" that comes from a weird website, an unknown person with an unknown academic background is reliable in any way? Please read WP:RS.

If I am wrong then please state who wrote the source's article and their academic background.. Javext (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Use Google Translate's website translator to know what the text says. As for the names of the authors, they are given in those articles. I can give you more sources like this one from Independent Arabia which not only says the name of the author but also has a portrait of him. In fact I can spend the entire night bringing sources for the text that was there already as this battle is celebrated literally every year since the "kicking out of the Portuguese" according to the shihris and articles about the battle are made every year. There is a whole cultural dance that emerged from this battle called the iddah/shabwani (pics and a video from commons) if you're interested in it. Here are more sources from al-Ayyam (A local newspaper that is praised for its reliability and neutrality) and this is a publication from the Sanaa university press (In both English and Arabic). I think you get what I'm saying. Abo Yemen ✉ 19:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's so funny how every source you put in the page of the battle comes from random shady Arab/Yemeni websites/articles that every time I open them it looks like 30 different viruses will be installed on my computer; all the authors are either completely unknown, for example, can you tell me who "Sultan Zaher" is? It's either that or Yemeni state-controlled media outlets which is obviously neither neutral nor reliable. It's very clear it's all an attempt to glorify "yemeni resistance against colonialism" or something like that because when you take a look at REAL neutral sources from universities or historians like the ones I gave, they never mention such things that the yemenis kicked the Portuguese out. If it was true and such a big event that it's even celebrated in Yemen every year, why would every single neutral source ignore that part? Or even disagree and state no one could oust the Portuguese?

Your link to the Independent Arabia source isn't working. Where exactly is the publication from Sanna university? Javext (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.independentarabia.com/node/197431/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%81%D8%B1/%D8%B4%D8%AD%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D8%B1%D9%85%D9%88%D8%AA-%D9%88%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%88%D9%82%D8%B9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%AC%D9%8A https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs/article/download/499/156/2070 Abo Yemen ✉ 05:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the page in the last link? Javext (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

sanaa uni's journal Abo Yemen ✉ 16:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked for the page not the publisher, but nevermind. Once you open a thread at WP:RSN Javext (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe that is a big issue but there's also an issue in the infobox about the Result of the battle. Javext (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

References

: However, the fact that the Mahra occasionally partnered with the Portuguese has been held against the Mahra by Ḥaḍramī partisans as a blemish on their history; in contrast, the Kathīrīs appear to have generally collaborated with the Ottoman Turks (although not always; see Serjeant, 1974: 29). For instance, in 1523 CE, a flotilla of nine Portuguese ships attacked and pillaged al-Shiḥr, claiming that the property of a Portuguese merchant who had died in al-Shiḥr had been unlawfully seized by the Kathīrī sultan, Badr bin ʿAbdallāh Bū Ṭuwayriq. With the apparent collusion of some Mahra, the Portuguese killed a great number of the town’s defenders, including seven of its legal scholars and learned men who would collectively come to be a known as “The Seven Martyrs of al-Shiḥr” and whose tomb would become the site of an annual pilgrimage (Muqaddam, 2005: 343-46, citing al-Kindī and Bā Faqīh, and al-Jidḥī, 2013: 208-20).

First statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

It does seem like that this dispute concerns the reliability of some sources, so I suggest the editors to open a thread at WP:RSN and discuss it there. Once the discussion there finishes, if there are any problems left, we can discuss that here, alright? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen and Javext: Any reason why this hasn't happened? This dispute seems to be based on whether some sources are reliable, and it's difficult to proceed if we aren't on the same page regarding that. Once the reliability of the sources is cleared up, we can continue discussing here. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes my bad. Ill be starting a thread there in a bit Abo Yemen ✉ 09:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: Any updates on this? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OH YEAH my bad. I got myself into lots of on-wiki work (2 GA reviews and an article that im trying to get to FL class as part of the WikiCup) and kinda forgot about this. I actually went to the notice board but didn't find any clear guidelines on how to format my request (and what am i supposed to do there anyways); Do I just give some background and list all the sources or is there something else that i am supposed to do? Abo Yemen ✉ 19:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: I guess give some context, and list the sources in question. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Im actually writing it up rn just give me a few mins Abo Yemen ✉ 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Useage of Arabic-language sources in Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) Abo Yemen ✉ 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

Second statement by moderator (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

The thread at RSN has been archived, and it appears to me that the consensus is that the listed sources are not reliable in this context. Taking this into consideration, what are the issues that remain? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restored it for a bit wait 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No issues remain. Without those listed sources there's nothing he can change. The article is good as it is now. Javext (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Commenting as a regular editor

The defenders of the city "were horribly routed." Routed refers to being "defeated overwhelmingly," signifying a decisive victory for the invading forces. Manuductive (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Battle of Ash-Shihr)

Urartu

– Discussion in progress. Filed by Bogazicili on 16:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Urartu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
Skeptical1800 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Multiple issues discussed in Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes.

I don't disagree with all of the changes made by Skeptical1800 but they made a large amount of changes in a few days, so I had to do complete reverts. My concerns include removal of information that is reliably sourced.

Information in question, while properly sourced, is either irrelevant, outdated and not in line with current data/theories (user is knowingly relying on information from 1980 or before), or is an intentional distortion of quote.

User has been alerted as to meaning of quote in one case. When taken out of context of full paper (which is about nature of political formation of Urartu and Iron Age Armenia), quote in question seems as if it is saying Armenians did not live in Urartu. However, an Armenian presence in Urartu is reflected in numerous other sources on page.

User has also has been alerted that they have left out full quote in another case (omitting final two sentences), which distorts overall meaning of quote, resulting in misleading information. Full quote was provided in notes on page, and was reflected in my edit. User removed this repeatedly, with no given reason.

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Talk:Urartu#Recent_changes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolve issues with respect to WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:OR, and removal of content

Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800

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

Here is the quote in question. It is about nation-state identity in the sense of modern nation-states. It is not about the presence of ethno-linguistic groups:

"Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism"

User has repeatedly removed information from peer reviewed genetic paper suggesting an Armenian presence in Urartu. Here is that source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The following quote from this paper was included on page. User removed it.

Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon.

The following information from the same paper was also included on page. User removed it, stating it didn't have anything to do with geographic "core Urartu," although the page in question says in first and second sentences that Urartu includes Lake Urmia region/Iran:

"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there"

So user's geographic exclusions seems arbitrary and based on their own definitions, which contradict both peer-reviewed source material, and also the very page this dispute is about. User has no issue including sources and information about other far-flung regions of Urartu (such as northern Iraq, central Turkey).

Here is the quote in question:

"That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestor with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986)"

User repeatedly omits following two sentences. While user admits Hurro-Urartian languages "may" be related to Northeast Caucasian languages, full quote reveals this connection is controversial and far from accepted.

"The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

User has also repeatedly removed quality sources, some from the same source material as their own sources, with no given reason. Such as https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu

User's instance Armenians had nothing to do with Urartu is contradicted by sourced material on page, such as:

Robert Drews. Militarism and the Indo-Europeanizing of Europe. Routledge. 2017. p. 228. "The vernacular of the Great Kingdom of Biainili was quite certainly Armenian. The Armenian language was obviously the region's vernacular in the fifth century BC, when Persian commanders and Greek writers paired it with Phrygian. That it was brought into the region between the early sixth and the early fifth century BC, and that it immediately obliterated whatever else had been spoken there, can hardly be supposed; ... Because Proto-Armenian speakers seem to have lived not far from Hurrian speakers our conclusion must be that the Armenian language of Mesrop Mashtots was descended from an Indo-European language that had been spoken in southern Caucasia in the Bronze Age."

and:

Paul Zimansky. "Xenophon and the Urartian legacy." Dans les pas des Dix-Mille (1995): 264-265 "Far from being grounded on long standing cultural uniformities, was merely a superstructure of authority, below which there was plenty of room for the groups to manifest in the Anatolia of Xenophon to flourish. We need not hypothesize massive influxes of new peoples, ethnic replacement, or any very great mechanisms of cultural change. The Armenians, Carduchoi, Chaldaioi, and Taochoi could easily have been there all along, accommodated and concealed within the structure of command established by the Urartian kings."

It should be noted that user has referred to the above paper and scholar (Zimansky) repeatedly in their own edits. So why is Zimansky (the world's foremost living scholar on Urartu) reputable in some cases but not in others?

Additionally, there's the question of why information like the following is relevant: "Checkpoints: Kayalıdere Castle is one of the important centers that enabled the Urartian kingdom to control the surrounding regions from Lake Van to the west."

It's a single sentence paragraph that adds little to the article. There are countless Urartian sites, why is this one worth mentioning or receiving its own special paragraph devoted exclusively to it? Not all Urartian sites need to be mentioned.

To the previous point, there's also the following: "Archaeological sites within its boundaries include Altintepe, Toprakkale, Patnos and Haykaberd. Urartu fortresses included Erebuni Fortress (present-day Yerevan), Van Fortress, Argishtihinili, Anzaf, Haykaberd, and Başkale, as well as Teishebaini (Karmir Blur, Red Mound) and others."

Site names are repeated, both here and in other areas of the page. There's no need for this redundancy.

There are also six paragraphs related to the reading of cuneiform in the Names and etymology section. I don't think this is necessary, it seems like overkill. The point of Misplaced Pages is to summarize information. This is not a summary. Additionally, this information seems to be copied and pasted from some other source (perhaps Hamlet Martirosyan?). It includes lines like the following (emphasis mine): "especially when we take into account the fact that the names refer to the same area." Why is "we" included here? Who is "we"? How is this Misplaced Pages appropriate?

These issues were corrected in my edits, and user Bogazicili reverted these edits repeatedly with no explanation.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Urartu discussion

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

Skeptical1800, if you accept to participate in this process, we can talk all the issues here.

I had reverted your recent changes based on WP:BRD and had removed content I added that you object to based on WP:ONUS, so we can discuss the issues here. Can you please undo your recent edits? Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Undid recent edits, as requested.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Skeptical1800, you can move this to "Summary of dispute by Skeptical1800" section. Then we wait for moderator instructions. If you accept to participate in this Dispute resolution noticeboard case, we can go over all the issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Urartu)

I am ready to begin moderated discussion if the filing party and the other editor agree to moderated discussion, but only if there is agreement that we are discussing article content. One editor has discussed an editor conduct issue on a user talk page. It must be understood that the discussion will be limited to article content. Conduct issues may not be discussed here, and may not be discussed at other noticeboards while content discussion is in progress here. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on Armenia and Azerbaijan. If you take part in discussion here, you are agreeing that this case involves a contentious topic. If you want to discuss article content here, remember that the purpose of discussion is to improve the article. So please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what another editor wants to change that you want to leave the same.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Urartu)

I agree to discussing article content. Issues are:

Removal of content from the lead. Following Armenian incursions into Urartu, Armenians "imposed their language" on Urartians and became the aristocratic class. The Urartians later "were probably absorbed into the Armenian polity".
Removal of content from Urartu#Appearance_of_Armenia: The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds".
Removal of this content, or where it should be put: These languages might have been related to Northeast Caucasian languages.
Misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, with respect to this edit. Note that this source was misrepresented in other articles such as: Talk:Proto-Armenian_language#Recent_edits and Talk:Origin_of_the_Armenians#Recent_edits. So I want to go over the suggested additions by Skeptical1800 with respect to sources and make sure there is no misrepresentation.
I have no issues with changes such as switching BC to BCE. Bogazicili (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Only one party here is misrepresenting sources (i.e. the Areshian quote regarding the presence of Armenians in Urartu, the Zimansky quote regarding Urartians' linguistic relationship with Northeast Caucasian languages). The edits in Proto-Armenian_language and Origins of the Armenians page are correct and not a misrepresentations. They are sourced. May I remind you, this dispute is about the Urartu page, not about the Proto-Armenian language or Origins of the Armenians pages, so that is all irrelevant here.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your stalking of my activities on Misplaced Pages is alarming, strange, and inappropriate to begin with.

Regarding the relevant article, the issues are as follows:

Article should include genetic information from Lazaridis et al. (2022, peer-reviewed) suggesting a possible Armenian-speaking presence in Urartian-era northern Iran (then under Urartian political domination).https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should include source from Petrosyan (2019, peer-reviewed) (citing other Eisler, Lehmann-Haupt, and Kretschmer) saying that some Urartian kings may have had Indo-European names. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354450528_On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should include source from Çifçi (2017, peer-reviewed) (citing Zimansky) saying some kings of Urartu came from Lake Urmia region, according to Sargon II. https://www.academia.edu/31692859/The_Socio_Economic_Organisation_of_the_Urartian_Kingdom_Culture_and_History_of_the_Ancient_Near_East_89_BRILL The inclusion of this information was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should not include Zimansky quote about a possible connection to Northeast Caucasian languages unless the full-quote is included (emphasis mine): "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet earlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by man (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely." The final two sentences of this quote were removed repeatedly for no reason. If the full quote is included, it should go in the Language section. It should not be in the lead.
Article should not include quote from Areshian as it is misrepresented and taken out of context. When taken out of context of paper overall, the quote doesn't make sense. As others have pointed out, the inclusion of this quote is a violation of WP:UNDUE as it contradicts numerous WP:RS included on the page, such as Drews, Diakonoff, and Zimansky. Removal of this quote was reverted repeatedly for no reason.
Article should generally be edited and cleaned up (including removal of redundant and superfluous information). These edits were reverted repeatedly for no reason.

Skeptical1800 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Urartu)

Be civil and concise. A few of the statements here have not be civil. I will advise the editors again to comment on content, not contributors. If you want to make allegations of stalking or of misrepresenting sources, read the boomerang essay first, and then report the conduct at WP:ANI, but we will not discuss content here while conduct is being discussed anywhere. Please use some other term than saying that an editor is misrepresenting sources, which may imply intentional misrepresentation. If you think that another editor is misinterpreting sources, you may so that.

Do any of the content issues have to do with questions about the reliability of sources? I see statements that content was removed. If an editor removed content, or wants content removed, please state whether the removal is because of source reliability issues, or due weight, or other reasons.

Please reread DRN Rule D and again say whether you agree that we will only discuss content. Please also state whether there are any questions about source reliability, and what are any other reasons for removal of content.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to only discuss content.

There is no issue with the quality of sources (although some are outdated as they were published in 1980 or before). However, the editor is misinterpreting the Areshian source ("Bīsotūn, ‘Urartians’ and ‘Armenians’ of the Achaemenid Texts, and the Origins of the Exonyms Armina and Arminiya"), which was explained to editor more than once. Their interpretation of said quote is that "'The claim that Urartians were Armenians has no "serious scientific grounds'". While the page and sources do not claim that Urartians were Armenians, outside of the context of the full source, this statement can be confusing, and lead to WP:RS, as it is widely accepted there was an Armenian presence in Urartu.

Editor removed information derived from the following source (which was published in the same collection as the Areshian source), that suggested some of the etymologies of Urartian kings' name could be Indo-European:https://www.academia.edu/46876602/On_the_ethnic_origin_of_the_ruling_elite_of_Urartu This source was published by Archaeopress Publishing.

Please note the abstract of the above source (emphasis mine): "Some names of Urartian kings have good parallels in the Balkans, the others are etymologisable in the Indo-European ground."

Editor also removed information saying some of the Urartian kings came from a region called Armarili, which may have been located near Lake Urmia in northern Iran or may have been located near Lake Van. The section that was removed was: "According to Sargon II, the hometowns of some of the Urartian kings were located in Armarili (or Aramali) district, which was probably located to the west of Lake Urmia (perhaps near modern Salmas, Iran) or near Lake Van." The following was the source: https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/18115/1/Cifciali_May2014_18115.pdf This source is a thesis published by a doctoral candidate student from the University of Liverpool who is now Assistant Professor in Ancient History at Marmara University, and was a Senior Fellow at the Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, who has published several articles on Urartian archaeology.

Here is the relevant passage: Levine (1977a: 145, Fig. 1) considered the Ushnu/Solduz Plain as a possible location of Amarili, but Zimansky (1990: 16) proposed a northerly location and considered the Shahpur (Salmas) Plain -a location in the north-west shore of the Lake Urmia.

Another relevant passage from this source is here:

Further evidence in regard to events of this period may be found in Sargon II’s ‘Letter to the God Assur’, where two different noble families were mentioned, one in the city of Arbu being ‘the father's house of Ursa’(Rusa) and the other in Riar as ‘the city of Ishtarduri’ (Sarduri).

The following source was not included, but could be, as it supports the (removed) statement on page, that some of the Urartian kings came from Armarili: Riar (Rijar), city in the Urartian province Armarili and Arbu, Urartian city in the province Armarili. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/downloads/radner_acta_iranica_51_2012.pdf

The above source was from an academic symposium about Urartu, co-chaired by Paul Zimansky, a Urartologist, whose work the editor has cited elsewhere.

The editor misinterpreted the Areshian quote in order to suggest there was no scientific evidence linking Urartians and Armenians. However, this is in direct opposition to numerous sources already on the page (as I have referred to in other comments in this discussion thread, using excerpts from Drews and Zimansky). I added this, which was removed, even after I changed the writing to reflect the editor's suggestions: "A 2022 study found that Urartian-era samples from Hasanlu Tepe in the Lake Urmia region of northern Iran possessed ancestry patrilineally related to earlier Bronze Age samples from Armenia. Both groups were discovered to be related to the Yamnaya culture, who are commonly thought to have been the speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language. Due to these connections, the researchers suggested the population of Urartian-era northern Iran may have spoken a language connected to Armenian, however, they also said it was possible the language spoken was a non-Indo-European language. However, the study found that Urartian-era individuals from Çavuştepe on the southeastern shore of Lake Van had increased Levantine ancestry and lacked the Indo-European-related ancestry found in contemporaneous individuals from Armenia and northern Iran. The researchers suggested these distinct genetic communities could indicate the presence of Hurro-Urartian and Armenian-speaking populations and their respective geographic positioning during the Urartian-era."

The source was the following: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10019558/ This study was published in Science.

Here are the cited excerpts from the source (emphasis mine):

"An even more striking case is that of the Iron Age Kingdom of Urartu situated in the mountainous and geographically fragmented regions of eastern Turkey and Armenia where the linguistic landscape must have been complex in the Bronze and Iron Ages. The people at the center of this kingdom in the Lake Van region of Turkey (Çavuştepe) and its northern extension in Armenia, were strongly connected by material culture, and were buried only ~200km apart, yet formed distinct genetic clusters with little overlap during the kingdom’s early (9th-8th c. BCE) period (Fig. 2). The Van cluster is in continuity with the pre-Urartian population (~1300BCE) at neighboring Muradiye also in the Van region, and is characterized by more Levantine ancestry and the absence of steppe ancestry. It contrasts with the cluster of Urartian period individuals from Armenia which have less Levantine and some steppe ancestry like the pre-Urartian individuals of the Early Iron Age (1). Our genetic results help explain the formation of linguistic relationships in the region. Population continuity of the Lake Van core population with greater “Levantine” ancestry may well correspond to the Hurro-Urartian language family (23) that linked the non-Indo-European Urartian language of the kingdom with the earlier Bronze Age Hurrian language whose more southern distribution encompassed parts of Syria and North Mesopotamia. Into the periphery of this Hurro-Urartian linguistic sphere came a steppe-admixed population from the north, whose presence marks the southern edge of steppe expansion we discussed above and whose proximity to the Urartian speakers would provide a mechanism for the incorporation of Urartian words into the Armenian lexicon."

Also this:

"When we compare (Fig. 2E) the Urartian individuals with their neighbors at Iron Age Hasanlu in NW Iran (~1000BCE), we observe that the Hasanlu population possessed some of Eastern European hunter-gatherer ancestry, but to a lesser degree than their contemporaries in Armenia. The population was also linked to Armenia by the presence of the same R-M12149 Y-chromosomes (within haplogroup R1b), linking it to the Yamnaya population of the Bronze Age steppe(1)." '"The absence of any R1a examples among 16 males at Hasanlu who are, instead, patrilineally related to individuals from Armenia suggests that a non-Indo-Iranian (either related to Armenian or belonging to the non-Indo-European local population) language may have been spoken there".

The editor's rational for removal was that the area in question (northern Iran) was not part of the "core" Urartu. However, numerous sources consider this region to be Urartu, and this is the same general region where some of the Urartian kings were said be to be from, according to Sargon II (as previously discussed in above sources). In fact, the Radner source calls Armarili "a Urartian province."

Lastly, the inclusion of Hurro-Urartian potentially being connected to Northeast Caucasian languages is fine. The editor cited an excerpt from Zimansky. However, the full quote must be included (i.e. including the last two sentences). I have highlighted the last two sentences of the quote in question, which was repeatedly omitted: "That Hurro-Urartian as a whole shared a yet yearlier common ancestors with some of the numerous and comparatively obscure languages of the Caucasus is not improbable. Modern Caucasian languages are conventionally divided into southern, (north)western, and (north)eastern families (Smeets 1989:260). Georgian, for example, belongs to the southern family. Diakonoff and Starostin, in the most thorough attempt at finding a linkage yet published, have argued that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of the eastern Caucasian family. This would make it a distant relative of such modern languages as Chechen, Avar, Lak, and Udi (Diakonoff and Starostin 1986). The etymologies, sound correspondences, and comparative morphologies these authors present are quite tentative and viewed with skepticism by many (e.g. Smeets 1989). In any case, a reconstructed parent language dating to the early third millennium B.C.E. at the earliest would do nothing to define the Urartian homeland more precisely."

Leaving the last two sentences of the above quote out give the impression that a Hurro-Urartian linguistic connection to Northeast Caucasian languages is far more certain than the full quote implies.Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Urartu)

Wesean Student Federation

– This request has been placed on hold. Filed by EmeraldRange on 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Wesean Student Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A couple days of edit warring between a couple of users, myself included. Specifically the dispute surrounds the inclusion of content regarding the etymology of "Wesea" being linked to separatist organisations. Five editors have expressed support to reduce the coverage of separatists organisations on this page about a student union solely based on incidental name similarities. One editor has consistent reverted demanding a consensus before removing content arguing that removing said content is censorship to promote an extreme POV normalising the term "Wesea".

Third party opinion was solicited, but there are more than two editors involved. I am following content resolution guidelines as parties have been mostly civil in discussing the consensus before asking for a formal RfC.

Additionally, there is a deletion discussion underway, but it is separate to this content dispute and is itself leaning towards keep (or at least not approaching a deletion consensus)

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

Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Third Opinion requested, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#POV Based Content: Possible Original Research, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Removal of the etymology section, Talk:Wesean Student Federation#Request for Review: Insurgency-Related Content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide additional unbiased perspectives and review of sources to reach consensus on content dispute, or recommend more formal processes

Summary of dispute by Flyingphoenixchips

My argument was basically that this constitutes WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. It was alleged that by not talking about the term makes this a Fansite. There are no sources added that links the use of the term by the organisation in the context of separatism, and its not relevant to include unless a source establishes it in context of the "organization". Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. Even amongst the sources cited, they only mention Wesea once or twice (Wesea is not the primary or even secondary subject of the sources), and there is no source that explicitly is only about Wesea (from what I found). However if anyone find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Misplaced Pages's integrity. Also as another other user had brought this up, I would also agree with that user for the addition of etymology in the article, provided there are third party sources, that talks about the term in context of the Organization thats the subject of the article.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

Wesean Student Federation discussion

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

Hey there, I’m Steve, and a volunteer here at DRN. Just noting I intend to provide some assistance with this dispute, and I’ll wait for the comments of the involved editors before reviewing more fully. Also, I’ve noted the in progress AFD, so I may decide to put this on hold until there’s a clearer consensus on the status of this article, but given the good-faith dispute resolution attempts that have taken thus far, I’m not inclined to close this in just yet. Of course, if the AFD is closed as delete, this would be moot, but I agree it doesn’t look to be trending that way as of this moment. Thanks! Steven Crossin 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

– Discussion in progress. Filed by Clovermoss on 18:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Jehovah's Witnesses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Clovermoss (talk · contribs)
Jeffro77 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing argument between another editor and I about how information should be presented in the lead. Part of this is about the first sentence, but the disagreement in its entirety affects the whole first paragraph. I tried to do a bold rewrite of the lead on December 12, but it was objected to on January 10. My concerns about the lead have been about making it less sea-of-bluish, giving a better overview to non-specialist readers by emphasizing the Bible Student connection, and mentioning that it is generally classified as a Christian denomination because that is true; the clarification feels nessecary because reliable sources also discuss how there is significant disagreement about other labels like new religious movements. Because explaining that in the middle of the first sentence would be hard, I used "religious group" in the first sentence for describing how JWs are an outgrowth of the Bible Student movement. I thought at first that the other editor opposed my proposed changes because of the Bible Student connection, but it's actually about using "religious group" at all. Their objections appear to be that this is a non-neutral term, makes a false theological claim, conflicts with the idea that they are highly regulated and hierarchical organization, ambiguous, and shouldn't be used because "that is essentially how the denomination markets itself to the general public". We've been at an impasse for awhile, a third opinion didn't help much, and I don't see further back and forth between the two of us accomplishing much without more outside feedback.

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

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Lead sentence

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think that maybe things are a bit tense between us because we're the two main editors in the topic area. I'm a relative newcomer to it, only really seriously starting to edit it in 2022. Jeffro's been editing there a much longer time. So when we disagree, things end up at somewhat of an impasse because one of us needs to agree with the other in order to move forward. I don't know if that will really help you dissolve the dispute in any way but it's useful background.

Summary of dispute by Jeffro77

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

In the case of most religious denominations, there is a distinction between the name of the denomination and the term for a group of believers (e.g. Catholic Church/Catholics; Church of England/Anglicans; Church of Scientology/Scientologists). However, in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, the same name is used for both the denomination and the term for a group of believers. It is also common for Jehovah's Witnesses to prefer the usage in the sense of a group of believers. As shown at religious group, that term is ambiguous and can refer to either, which is not ideal in this situation where the terms for the name of the denomination or its adherents are ambiguous. It would therefore be preferred that the first sentence of the lead clearly express that it is a Christian denomination rather than potentially suggesting that it is just an unregulated group of loosely affiliated believers (like other groups in the Bible Student movement).--Jeffro77 Talk 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses discussion

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

Hi there, I’m Steve, and I’m a volunteer here at DRN. I’ve had a quick skim of the talk page and can see that the discussion was quite cordial there, and a third opinion was requested and provided. I’ll sit tight and wait for the thoughts of the other editor involved, and we will go from there. Thanks! Steven Crossin 21:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your statements, let's get things going! I'll review this and the talk page discussion in the next 24 hours, and provide my initial thoughts. After that, we can discuss further in this section (I usually don't break things up into sections). Sounds like a plan? Steven Crossin 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That sounds alright to me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks. I might not always be able to reply in a timely fashion during the work week.—Jeffro77 Talk 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Azmat Alishah. Ottoman Domination in the Arab Land and Its Effects on Muslim India." Retrieved January 22, 2025.

Categories: