Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 130

Summary of dispute by Alumzsh

Summary of dispute by NatGertler

Complaining editor (who has a clear conflict of interest) has repeatedly inserted resume material at Jack London (businessman) copied from the subject's corporate bio. The addition of this material has been reverted, in whole or part, by other editors as well (Fyddlestix (talk · contribs) and Cwobeel (talk · contribs), with KConWiki (talk · contribs) tagging the material ), so it lacks consensus for inclusion... and even if there was consensus, the material's copyright violation problems would override that (copyvio concerns also included added photos, which the complainant claimed were his own work, but which he describes above as having been provided by the subject). Complainant has posted 0 messages on the article's talk page. My postings on the complainant's talk page were all templates, with the addition of The material you're using would be inappropriate even if it weren't violation of copyright; it's hype-filled and inappropriately sourced, as the company's website is not a third-party source for the head of the company. and Your statement on my user page is basically a statement of conflict of interest. Review the discussion at User_talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry to see what I actually said to him on my page; I suspect you'll recognize it largely as attempting to explain Wikipedia policy, if at times bluntly. Complainant's only non-automated summary on the article was "Restoring deleted material", which, yes, explained what he did, but not why all concerns were overlooked. So yes, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)'s summary below is accurate - this is an editor showing a poor understanding of Wikipedia while trying to stop responsible edits that are inconvenient to his goals. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry discussion

• Volunteer note - There are at least two related problems with this request. First, this request appears to be a request to use this noticeboard to assert article ownership of an article about a businessman by the company of which he is the board chairman. Second, the filing party appears to be trying to copy copyrighted material to this article. I recommend closure of this thread as reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and with a warning to the filing party. As a minor point, the filing party has not notified the other editor, but that wouldn't fix the fact that this dispute is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by several

Talk:Martin McGuinness#.22deputy.22_vs_.22Deputy.22 discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Capitals00

Completely disregarding this forum shopping, A. C. Grayling was included already, and these issues have been already solved on talk page as most editors support present version and supported by WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP. Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by D4iNa4

Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other parties. One of those editors appears to be declining to participate. Waiting for a reply from the other editor. Two other editors participated in the editing of the template page itself before it was locked due to edit-warring. Should they also be invited to participate in this discussion? I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I recommend that this case be accepted. The template is currently full-protected and it is clear that the participants are unable to reach agreement without additional advice. It would be a bit much to discuss each and every entry at the DRN, but the general principles for inclusion/exclusion need to be determined. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Robert McClenon, I am willing to work on all the critics if it helps solve this problem once and for all. I can provide sources where each and every one of them has criticized the religion under which they have been listed. However, the editors who have been reverting me have not been discussing anything, neither on the TP, nor here. I am not sure what a person can do in this situation. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: Since one editor feels that this has been solved (which implies that s/he does not care to participate here) and the other has not responded, this case will be closed as futile by a volunteer after this time tomorrow unless there is a dramatic change in that situation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

@User:TransporterMan the page is currently under full protection, nothing has been solved. What can I do to solve this problem? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph

Summary of dispute by Debresser.

This article is up at Afd and seems to go to a unanimous delete, the filing editor excluded. That fact alone not only makes this post superfluous, but also puts this post in the correct perspective. I am referring to the unanimity. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Eteethan

User talk:190.150.36.88 discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Nblund

As I stated in the RfC: I do not think that the finding needs to be left out of the article. I do think that that finding should only be mentioned in the context of the existing academic research on women's reasons for not reporting sexual victimization. There are two things that I think should be made clear to readers:

• This finding is not new or unique. The AAU finding is consistent with several decades of previous research on this topic, and it's misleading and unhelpful to fail to point this out.

• There has been peer reviewed research in to why women choose not to report their victimization to the police. Experts generally view this response as indicative of the difficulties women face in reporting sexual assault, and do not think it should be taken "at face value", as Mattnad suggests. I suggested that we could cite some of Bonnie Fisher's research to present the expert views of that finding.

Mattnad doesn't seem to dispute the veracity of either of these points, but instead has argued that including Fisher's work in relation to the AAU study would constitute "original research coattrack" because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was "fringe" work. However, as Carwil noted in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (page 36), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. Nblund (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aquillion

I've explained my feelings on this on the talk page, so I'll be brief about them here: I don't feel that most sources place the degree of significance on this particular statistic that Mattnad does. While it gets mentioned, it's usually one sentence amid an assortment of different factoids from the study; by comparison, most articles lead with the overarching figure on prevalence of sexual assault (which is, after all, the main conclusion of the study.) Putting it in the lead the way Mattnad is suggesting is artificially forcing an equal weight on two things that are clearly not weighted equally in the sources, and clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that most sources have not treated as so significant. Mattnad says that "it has been covered" by many sources; but the weighting and tone within those sources is also important to pay attention to. As far as I can tell, none of them (aside from one editorial) have given it any significant weight. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Carwil

My involvement in this dispute began with the RfC posted in October. In my view, a question of policy and guidelines underlies this dispute at all stages, namely how best to identify reliable sources. Mattnad has put forward requests on the basis that multiple reliable sources (newspaper articles covering the 2015 Campus Climate Survey) should frame the article's use of the underlying study, which was produced by academics in a rigorous, fact-checking manner, though perhaps not subject to peer review. In my estimation, "The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Wikipedia shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the … researchers' published findings." This follows from the guidance at WP:NEWSORG.

Delving a bit more into the substance of the dispute, there is the question of whether, and how much, to highlight a follow-up question asked to students who did not report their rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Such students reported a number of reasons, the most frequent of which is the incident was "not serious enough to report." My read on the cause of the dispute is that external writers (including the oft-cited Stuart Taylor, an expert with a different view on the importance of campus sexual assault) have built a point-of-view around the non-serious nature of most assaults reported in survey data, and that this one survey result is intended to back up that POV.

This page is deluged by trench warfare on this point, and editors are thereby sidetracked from their role of fully describing the extent and nature of campus sexual assault, as well as the reasons for non-reporting. There's more material in the 2015 CCS that isn't on the page, and an abundant peer-reviewed research literature (including the much-mentioned but hardly used Fisher 2003 article) on the subject of survivor's reporting decisions that could and should be included on the page.

In my view, the next step should be to flesh out the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section with more of the results from that survey, and to create a section summarizing the literature on non-reporting. Fisher 2003's and Stuart Taylor's positions can be summarized in this new section.

The "not serious enough to report" survey response simply isn't so important as to need to be in the lead right now.--Carwil (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VQuakr

Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been considerable recent discussion at the talk page, and proper notice, so that this case can be opened by a volunteer. There was an RFC, which has not been formally closed but has expired, and does not prevent discussion here. The RFC was not concisely worded and attracted little comment. Either discussion here or rewording the RFC neutrally with better publicity might be appropriate. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Volunteer note 2: I'm a bit concerned that we do not provide the kind of service expected by the filing party based upon his answer to the "How do you think we can help" question. What we do here is, per the header, "we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" or, in short, we facilitate discussion between the parties. Volunteers here may, if they choose, close a case by offering an opinion when there is a clear single outcome set by policy but that's just one volunteer's opinion and only applies in the most clear-cut of cases. In short, if all Mattnad is looking for is additional people to weigh in then this isn't the place to obtain that and he should consider withdrawing this request; on the other hand, if he feels that there's still a possibility that he and the responding party might work it out with some additional supervised discussion, then he's in the right place. What do you say, Mattnad? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Pinged for comment: I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the "compromise" offered by Nblund is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Wikipedia around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough."Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. Let's see if the responding editor chooses to participate. (Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and never mandatory.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and stop trying to re-insert the disputed material in to the lead paragraph of the entry until some kind of consensus is reached. It's hard to tell what changes are being discussed when the status quo keeps moving.

I think Robert McClenon's proposal for a new round of RfC's may be a better basis for generating consensus, and I think a lack of eyeballs on the page is part of the root problem. That said: it seems like we have talked past each other on the nature of the dispute, and I think confusion over the nature of the dispute made the previous round of RfCs less productive than they could have been. Is it outside the scope of this process to ask for a mediated discussion simply to clarify the dispute itself, with the goal of creating a more productive round of RfCs? Nblund (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We could try another RFC, but I'm fine just adding the reporting on the finding (per AP as a mainstream reliable source) and in the spirit of NPOV the WaPo interpretation (with appropropriate mention of the source). Fisher has made her career around sexual assault, but for the benefit of the other editors here, the DOJs bureau of justice statistic has found 0.61% annual incidence for college students which is lower than the numbers reported in Fisher's research. The gap between the two stems in part from the broader definitions used by Fisher which many students don't think are as serious as Fisher thinks they are. Also, per Nblund's own sources, part of the disagreement in interpretation comes from feminist opinion, which is fine to include, but does not disqualify other views.

So, what I've been seeking is NPOV balance, where it belongs per the sources - with the AAU study section.Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer note 3: After an inquiry on my user talk page, I've taken a look at the discussion and added and notified three parties who have been involved in the recent discussion. I don't think that they're absolutely necessary parties to this case going forward, but they ought to be given a chance to participate if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update: VQuakr has indicated at her/his user talk page that s/he does not care to participate here, which should not affect whether or not a volunteer opens the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Participant Comment: I'm fine with this finding not being in the lede, but in the particular section related to the AAU study from where it came. However, Nblund has argued against this, saying it's common to most studies, so it would be undue to put in that section. She and Carwil refer heavily to Bonnie Fisher whom they have cited as an expert and one of the AAU study designers to support this argument. However, a direct quote from Fisher says otherwise. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” . I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". However Nblund has taken the position that Fisher's plain English quote in the Washinton post is "unverified" and contradicted by Nblund's interpretation of a general statement from the study. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that Nblund is interpreting Wikipedia guidelines correctly and perhaps not discussing this in good faith.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by World Champion Editor

2nd of all, I simply removed his sentence fragments and added well supported and well written text reflecting the actual state of the "debate" of the community. Upon request, I imported a number of references from the J. Phillipe Rushton article, demonstrating that this theory is widely regarded as pseudoscience by the scientific community. Rushton is the most prominent and notable and relatively serious of recent scientific racists, and so, if anything I helped his case by adding Rushton, since Rushton is a more credible source than the references he linked to.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by World Champion Editor (talk • contribs)

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

Nations and intelligence discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been very recent discussion that has escalated within a half hour to DRN with very little actual discussion between users. The Master and World Champion Editor, you both need to do Wikipedia a favour here - slow down and actually discuss the issues for maybe another day or two and include Volunteer Marek who has also been recently involved in this dispute over content in the article. The Master, you do seem to be having some difficulties with expressing yourself in English at the moment and unfortunately English Wikipedia requires basic competency in English which you seem to be showing to some degree but perhaps not yet at the level required for article editing based on the talkpage posts. It is still recommended that you try using talkpage discussion to help Wikipedia improve, if and when possible.
  I have also placed notices on the talk pages of World Champion Editor for you per the DRN request that filing editors let the other involved editors know about the discussion, and Volunteer Marek has been notified as well.
  For now, I would close this discussion pending more extensive discussion between the parties, allowing for editors to refile later if moderated discussion is required, unless other DRN Volunteers feel there has or has not been sufficient discussion for a case to be opened. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also remind the editors involved in this case to focus on the content, not the editor. We have another noticeboard for focussing on an editor's behaviour, on the DRN page we focus on improving content. I will "hat" the personalised comments using the {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Doc James

Summary of dispute by MastCell

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

Decline DR. This has not been properly discussed on the article Talk page yet (where indeed there are unanswered questions on the material in dispute). Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A discussion of sources in the abstract is of little use, we need to know what content is being proposed for those references to support. The complainant seems to want to make a number of claims for the therapeutic efficacy of TM. These exceptional claims will generally require very strong sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and also WP:FRIND. Thus old (> 5 years old) secondary sources in fields where we have recent reviews can be discounted, so can primary sources, blogs and pieces in poor-quality and altmed journals. Any claim that is made needs to be WP:Verifiable per the cited supporting source. The complainant has now twice tried to make this edit which is sourced to:

• PMID 24107199 – an altmed journal and so lacking WP:FRINDependence.
• PMID 18350109 – a 9-year-old source in a field with newer sources, such as:
• PMID 23608661 – potentially a better source (not sure if the AHA is WP:MEDRS or how due their statements are), but which does not appear to support the claim being made. Instead it says: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP. It is not certain whether it is truly superior to other meditation techniques in terms of BP lowering because there are few head-to-head studies. As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP. However, TM (or meditation techniques in general) does not appear to pose significant health risks. Additional and higher-quality studies are required to provide conclusions on the BP-lowering efficacy of meditation forms other than TM." This is rather different from the text the complainant inserted saying that "TM that has proven its efficiency to lower BP".

When asked about this on the Talk page, no response has been made. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Transcendental Meditation discussion

•  Volunteer note: There has been sufficient and recent discussion on the Talk:Transcendental Meditation page for a DRN case to be opened. In response to Alexbrn, DRN discussion can pick-up from the talkpage discussion, including unanswered questions. Knowing this, do you still wish to withdraw from any possible discussion at the DRN? I am neither accepting nor rejecting the case for now. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree there has been any substantive discussion. The point of the dispute seems to be that the complainant wants "fair play recognition" for sources but when actually asked about these sources and their relation to the WP:PAGs, there is no response. However, if this DR can accelerate the process, then I'd be content to participate. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified.The discussion is open.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can clarify one of the points above. Editors are repeatedly removing information sourced to a 2015 meta-analysis on the effects of TM on anxiety that appeared in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. Their rationale is that this is a "fringe" journal. However, this journal is explicitly allowed by the WP:MEDRS guideline. That guideline says that journals that appear on the Brandon/Hill list of core journals for a medical library make good sources for Wikipedia. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine appears on the Brandon/Hill list. Skeptic editors have also used old primary sources (Michaels 1976, Pagano 1976), have used outdated sources (Ospina has been archived by AHRQ as no longer current), and have misrepresented sources (that Goyal found TM research to be poor when 5 of the 7 studies were rated medium or high quality, that TM studies are biased when in fact the Bai review found all 12 studies to meet the Cochrane standard, that Michaels was a failed attempt to replicate Wallace 1970, etc. etc.). TimidGuy (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A fringe journal may make a good source for certain types of "in universe" information, but it isn't a WP:FRIND source for making assertions that are not shared outside that universe. Claims about therapeutic efficacy need independent secondary mainstream sources. If the claimed view has truly permeated the mainstream, it should be easy to produce mainstream source that show that. Alexbrn (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer 1st statement- Oh ugh. I just looked-at the article and current talk page and it looks like the article needs an editing spree and some templeting in regards to NPOV. As it currently appears, this article is not serving the users of Wikipedia. Where is a "===Controversy/Critics===" section? requiring pristine scientific and medical referencing goes both ways here I guess, and a strict application is going to squash criticisms, (like this :^[1]. Also, although the MOS forbids using ® sign for trademarked names with the trademarked names in articles and titles, the fact that TM, and Transcendental Meditation, among other related registered trademarks, ARE trademarked is a fact that is missing from the article which is important in my opinion.
On the other hand, requiring that reliably sourced references be newer than 5 years old, too rigorous in my opinion, and the solution would be noting the date of the refs in the cites and/or article, and users know how to form their own opinions with that.

Question: Are we applying MERS standards for a topic where we should not be? Should this be a business article?
TeeVeeed (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS covers "medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine". The 5-year guideline applies to medical sources in an actively-research field (as this is). Any business aspects are not covered by MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer reply-correction noted, thank-you. MEDRS. yes. "...including those on alternative medicine.", I agree and understand that medical or scientific claims should be rigorously referenced according to MEDRS standards. (I'm still not committed about requiring <5years) But, I guess my question is should TM® even be treated as "alternative medicine", or as a business, or even as a religion? The article as it now appears is treating the entire topic as-if it is some type of alternative medicine, which gives it UNDUE, and is unbalanced overall. TeeVeeed (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by CFredkin

The edit in question is not supported by the source provided, and it is blatantly POV. The article is a WP:BLP, and "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

Since KBAeigs is presenting himself as new to Wikipedia, he/she may not be aware of policies regarding verifiability and neutrality, particularly with regards to BLP's (although I've provided links to the relevant articles in the Talk discussion). Perhaps he/she will be more amenable to coaching from other editors.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that I've suggested possible alternative language based on the source in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have notified the other editor. Waiting for response from the other editor, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Both parties are cautioned that they are close to 3RR, and so are advised that any form of dispute resolution, including here, is to be preferred over edit-warring. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this case, pending a response from the second party. /wia /tlk 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Note to participants: I have opened the case and will provide an opening statement shortly. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ScottyNolan

For my opinion, examples of certain incidents (some have been already erased) are important to brighten and point on several trends in the issue of antisemitism in US campuses.

Summary of dispute by N.F.B.R

Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the talk page. One of the other editors was notified; I have notified the other editor. Waiting for statements from the other editors since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottyNolan Poeticbent talk 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

24-hour closing notice: If the other primary editor involved, ScottyNolan, does not respond by this time tomorrow by providing a Summary of Dispute, above, this case will be closed by a volunteer as futile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

@TransporterMan: I'm a little confused? ScottyNolan has provided a summary of the dispute, albeit rather short. N.F.B.R has not responded, but that account seems to be not very active (only 2 edits ever made on it) and I would think we could proceed without N.F.B.R? Thanks. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right on both counts, my apologies, but if N.F.B.R. is eliminated then we have a discussion which only has one edit by one of the participants. That would seem not to satisfy that there have been extensive discussion on the article talk page, as required by this noticeboard. Having said that, I'm going to withdraw the closing notice and leave this open to see if a volunteer cares to take it. If none does, it will be closed as stale in two or three dates. Should that occur, you might want to consider a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FL or Atlanta

I believe the sources do not disagree with the page, which specifically states the appeal is a fallacy in logical, argumentative, or scientific reasoning. Things like doctor's visits that some sources and the other editor talk about are outside of the relevant scope of the article, which is about the appeal as an argument. Further, despite claims on the talk that appeals to authority make a presumption that the statement is true, the page lists multiple examples which show clearly that this is not the case, and includes a reliable source which explicitly states whether or not we should presume an idea is true is independent of who believes it. We have another speaking of nonreliance on appeals to authority as being something that "liberated" science, and so on.

I believe the confusion ultimately results from a misunderstanding on the other editor's part about what constitutes "authority" - see the discussion on my Talk where he states that alarm clocks carry their manufacturer's authority for example. All the sources discussing appeals to authority mean it in the sense of, essentially, "appeal to an expert". However the other editor seems to view the subject of the article as any appeal to anything's reliability in any context whatsoever.

I'd also like to point out that progress is still being made on the page as a result of the ongoing discussions. An agreeable consensus will be reached given time, but the other editor appears to lose patience very quickly, as can also be seen on my Talk and on the page's Talk. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Argument from authority discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The second editor was improperly notified on their talk page, I will provide them with a link and take the case once they have replied. TheLogician112 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My specific concerns are as follows:

1. Every source I have been able to find has made it clear -either explicitly by directly stating as much, or implicitly by including caveats which make it clear- that an appeal to authority is not a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is an expert in the subject in question. It is also sometimes noted that the statement made by the authority must not be contentious in that field, as well, but that is generally an edge case which doesn't change my point. I have argued for the inclusion of this very important bit of information, which FL or Atlanta has opposed and argued against in every way possible. My arguments so far were that;
   1. Education, scientific publication and the advancement of knowledge all rest upon the assumption that experts are correct more often than incorrect, and that this assumption is demonstrably true.
   2. Wikipedia is built by appealing to legitimate authorities, and it would be nonsensical to have an article undermining the very process which lends that article authority (which would lead to a logical paradox, as the tactic by which it undermines its own authority would, itself, be undermined). If this were true, this article would essentially be a very wordy version of "This statement is false."
   3. FL or Atlanta seems to implicitly grasp this truth themselves, as they have appealed to a number of authorities in the discussion.
   4. There is an important distinction between soundness and validity. Appeals to authority are always valid, but only unsound when the authority is not legitimate, when the authority asserts a contentious position, or when the conclusion is stated with absolute certainty.
   5. A number of heuristics and bits of advice on dealing with and making appeals to authority are being confused by FL or Atlanta with formal aspects of the definition of the term.
2. At least one other editor has expressed unreserved agreement with my position and attempted to make some of the same points as I, only to be reverted.

1. There is one source from a professional martial artist with an undergraduate degree in History which is (or was, the number of changes FL or Atlanta has made to the article since the discussion began makes it difficult to keep track) being used to support an explicit claim which is in opposition to the caveat in question. I have disputed this as a reliable source due to the standards given in Wikipedia's policy (note that this is a source whom I otherwise respect as an expert in the field of Historical European Martial Arts, and have been subscribed to on Youtube for some time now). Fl or Atlanta has responded by declaring the author a 'historian' and a valid expert by fiat, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
2. There is another source, introduced during the discussion by FL or Atlanta which states that the scientific method allowed us to stop gaining all our knowledge by appealing to authorities, which he used to support the statement that an appeal to authority (necessarily, it is implied) results in a logical fallacy. I have contended that this is synthesis and should be removed for this reason, and because -like the previous source- it does not meet the standards provided in WP:V, in that the author is not an expert in logic, philosophy, argumentation or education (the author is a computer scientist, and could be considered an expert in computer sciences or possibly mathematics).
3. A reliable source was removed by FL or Atlanta after I quoted where it agreed with me. He contended that it was not reliable, without giving any specific reason why, despite the site it was from being used un-contentiously in almost every other WP article on logical fallacies. Using an advanced Google search, as well as Wikipedia's own search function, I have been unable to find any controversy about the reliability of this source outside of this discussion.
4. FL or Atlanta's argument has essentially been that the caveat should not be included, because he interprets other passages in some of those sources to be refuting it. I have attempted to explain both WP policy (with regards to verifiability, not truth), and the logic which resolves the seeming contradiction between his interpretation and this caveat (in the difference between soundness and validity of a logical argument, as well as there being an important distinction between logical absolutes and reasonable certainty), but they seem more interested in winning the argument than finding common ground or achieving any sort of mutual understanding. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to part of FL or Atlanta's dispute summary:
"I believe the confusion ultimately results from a misunderstanding on the other editor's part about what constitutes "authority" - see the discussion on my Talk where he states that alarm clocks carry their manufacturer's authority for example."
I did not in any way suggest that the clock has authority, derived or otherwise. What I did was to abstract the rules from the appeal to authority and use them to construct an argument by example that might be easier for you to understand. That you did not understand it is regrettable, but does not indicate any lack of comprehension on my part. In truth, I believe it is you who lack knowledge of rhetoric and formal logic, else you likely would have understood my example.
"I'd also like to point out that progress is still being made on the page as a result of the ongoing discussions."

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers

Template:Forbes Magazine Lists discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Erik

12 Years a Slave was added to white savior narrative in film because there were reliable sources discussing how the film had a white savior. The IP editor personally believes that the sources are wrong and that there can only be a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. While the film may be different from others in this regard, the list's film entry actually specifically discusses the scope in which the white savior appears: "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as a cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." Where applicable, some other films on the list have similar clarifying language, such as The Man Who Would Be King being ironic but still portraying the natives as in need of a white savior, or the McFarland, USA director's attempted counter-argument. It was also argued that 12 Years a Slave was much more about slavery than about a white savior. This is absolutely true, but the elements are not mutually exclusive. The film article itself should not devote a higher word count to discussing the white savior over discussing slavery. That's why the white savior narrative in film is only linked in the "See also" section as a tangentially related topic. Within the white savior article, though, 12 Years a Slave is worth listing as part of the filmography. It is by no means the strongest example, but it is an example nonetheless, and appropriate to include since it is verifiable through reliable sources. (And it is only at the top of the list because the films are listed alphabetically.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• McCoy, Dorian L.; Rodricks, Dirk J. (2015). "Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations". ASHE Higher Education Report. 41 (3). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-11203-7. Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Above is a reliable source that retrospectively reports on the criticism at the time. It refers to multiple commentators identifying the white savior in the film. This does not mean it invalidates 12 Years a Slave being a quality film about slavery. Again, the elements of slavery and white savior are not mutually exclusive. Praise is not a reason to exclude a film; several films on the list are well-praised but are also identified as having a white savior. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 70.190.188.48

My problem with having 12 Years a Slave as an example of having a white savior is that it ignores the very criticism that people have with this trope, which is that a piece of work that is essentially about the struggles of people of color against racism is all about some white person helping said people of color. You can't just stretch the definition to just mean "white guy helps non-white guy"; for most people, the white savior has to be a white protagonist, or at the very least the deuteragonist, who helps out the non-white character(s) who are struggling under a system that is either blatantly racist like Jim Crow or Apartheid, or "merely" has the undertones of racism, like the poverty-stricken areas of the inner city or a third-world country. I am not saying that because a work is pointing out the problems of its white savior narrative it should not be an example in this article; I am saying the white savior just doesn't exist! I cannot be the only person that has a problem with 12 Years a Slave, a film that has been praised to death for not only showing the brutality of slavery, but also for showing it from a slave's point-of-view, being included in a list of movies that has a white savior narrative. And I especially don't like how the creator of the article has full control over it and denies having other people have a say in it, and how they think that because they found three people who did not like the movie and for some reason thinks it has a white savior, this automatically cancels out the hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Betty Logan

We have various policies which govern content. It is irrelevant if an editor disagrees with the existence of such a trope; it has been extensively writen about and satisifes notability, and even gained unanimous support in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film. The policies which are applicable here are WP:Verfiability and WP:WEIGHT. Inclusion and exclusion should only be subject to sourced commentary, not to arguments put forward by editors; this is one of Wikipedia's fundamental core policies. I am of the opinion that this article should not take a supportive view of the trope but a balanced one. Twelve Years a Slave is included in the list because reliable sources have identified it as exhibiting the trope per WP:Verfiability. If a reliable source puts forward a challenge then in the interest of taking a balanced view of the trope then I absolutely agree that this challenge should be fully documented in the article. If there are "hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior" then in principle I agree this cancels out a minority held opinion per WP:WEIGHT. I stipulated on the article talk page that challenges to content must be via reliably sourced counter-arguments, but no sources have been forthcoming. Until there are I don't see how there can be any "resolution". Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave discussion

• Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm UY Scuti and I'm taking this case case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Before getting into our discussions, let me point out some basic guidelines to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. 1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)Comment only on the content and not on the contributor. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and concise. P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by C.Fred

Summary of dispute by bagumba

Summary of dispute by HJ_Mitchell

Talk:MLB Rivalries discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Makeandtoss

Summary of dispute by Number 57

Summary of dispute by Tanbircdq

Talk:Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)#Quote discussion

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

Summary of dispute by Debresser

The discussion on the talkpage is only 2 posts by Boruch Baum and two post by me, each of mine a reply to his. I asked precise questions in my second post, to which Boruch Baum has not replied. I think it is far to early to ask for dispute resolution. Even if the discussion were longer, and Boruch Baum would have answered by questions in defense of his edit, a first good step would be asking editors at WT:JUDAISM for their input.

As far as the behavioral issue goes, WP:BRD says clearly that once reverted, consensus should be established before making another edit, but Boruch Baum thinks that he should edit before establishing consensus. That seems to be his general attitude here on Wikipedia. That is also part of the problem, but if he is now willing to discuss first, which his coming here seems to imply, then that is a step forward.

Robert McClenon, I have no problem with you managing the proceedings here, since I have no problems with how you handled the other conflict between Boruch Baum and me: we were wrong, you reported us, that's the way things should be. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. The filing editor appears to have introduced a reference to a non-existent page as well as to the subject page. I will be removing the incorrect reference. The responsibility to notify the other editor belongs to the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I will be recusing from this case because of a previous involvement with these same editors who don't like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Lordtobi

Given user, Arwineap, has started removing officially to-be-released announced platforms OS X and Linux from given article, Rocket League. Both platforms have multiply been stated to have ports in development, just like Xbox One, which also has not been released yet but unreleatedly did not come to Arwineap's attention. Fact is that the "platforms=" tag in {{Infobox video game}} serves for platforms on which the game has officially been released or announced, if not canceled. And this is just the case. I have, over a longer discussion over on Rocket League's talk page, tried to explain why it is correct what is said about OS X and Linux (and also Xbox One). But I was yet again presented with another answer dealing with their own opinion about "why it can be but is not yet". I respect that given person is new to Wikipedia, but they should not try to get through their personal thougts or opinions about a certain topic which has been explainedly disproven. Lordtobi (✉) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• The discussion went as stated in the dispute above, Arwineap started removing OS X and Linux from the platforms= tag of {{Infobox video game}}, which was reverted twice by Dissident93 and the last one by myself, warning about the ongoing edit war. It was taken to the discussion on the Rocket League talk page, where I again explained why given user is wrong, which lead to a discussion about "announced platforms not being part of the computing platform article", which is nonsense. I replied with the conventions and guidelines given by the template itself, but all Arwineap did was denying. I was reissuing the same statement all over the discussion, trying to explain how Wikipedia works because he seemed like a new user, but got about the same, ignorant and redundant answer again and again. It was finally taken here nonsensely by Arwineap, until Dissident93 turned up to also regard the same reason of Arwineap's wrongness, which gave nothing but same answer again. As I looked into the template once more, I saw that it was actually not stated clearly, but still was what everyone was using on every page (except for Goat Simulator, which has had the same issue by Arwineap back in 2014, also for OS X and Linux), so I tried to clarify but that was undone by Czar, so I put it up on the template's takl page, where I only got one answer: The same redundant answer, again by Arwineap, why it would be "bad for the Linux gaming community" and personal opinions they try to cover as facts. A later answer by Dissident93 gave the agreement with the statement of the clarification. I had reached out to undo-er Czar for a statement, but received no answer so far. And this is basically where it was left. It saw no further activity by Arwineap except for and excessively unneeded comment again by Arwineap on the Rocket League talk page, but no answer or edit neither on this page, nor on the template talk page, which is why I have to do the write-down right now. I tried to remove this discussion as it was pure nonsense and this is the really wrong place for it (as issued by Czar below), but was reverted as that is "not my job", but then, I wonder, who's job is it to remove pure nonsense? Lordtobi (✉) 16:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rocket League#Platform discussion

• Volunteer note: I'm neither taking this case or opening it for discussion, but merely noting that discussion and notice are adequate. We're waiting at this point for a volunteer to take the case. response from the other editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

• There has been additional discussion and additional parties joining in at Template talk:Infobox video game; if a DRN volunteer takes this case, those additional parties may need to be added here, but the issue may be resolved by consensus at that forum. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• We commonly rectify these sorts of questions at the talk pages of either Template talk:Infobox video game or WT:VG czar 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

The part in question can be traslanted in English: I've migrated from Tirana to Athens with my family at the age of two years. I still have some members of my family in Albania, but they are all Greeks. This doesn't leave any doubt that he originates from the Greek-Albanian community (i.e. ethnic Greek community in Albania), since even his relatives that are still in Albania are Greeks. Anything else is simply OR (such as poor translations via google) in this case. Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

The subject calls himself ethnic Greek. The issue is that some users try to downplay this ethnic identification by using OR (see the talk page), and now by using vagueness, such as changing "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania" to "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin". That's all I have to say about this.--Zoupan 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MorenaReka

I agree with DevilWearsBrioni that the source doesn't support the current wording, so Alexikoua is inferring in his edit his own original research. In addition, I would also add that there are several sources that say that Kone is an ethnic Albanian, and nationalized Greek at a young age, he was not born an ethnic Greek, and his cousins in Albania are not Greek at all. So not even the Greek source says that he is an ethnic Greek. Furthermore the Albanian sources and the Italian ones talk freely about the Albanian ethnicity of Kone (note that Kone has been playing in Italy since 2010 and we have many sources in Italian). Using google translate (I don't know Italian), I brought the following sources in Italian (if my translations from Italian are poor, like Alexikoua is saying, I invite someone else to assist with them):

1. Gazzetta dello Sport 3 September 2011 says "greco di origine albanese" ("Greek of Albanian origin")
2. Repubblica 21 December 2012 "Figlio di professori albanesi" ("Son of Albanian professors")
3. Il Foglio 2 September 2013 Non è facile nascere albanese e ritrovarsi Greco ("It is not easy to be born Albanian and find yourself Greek")

And I can bring several sources in Albanian, but I'm going to bring only some that have his ethnicity in the title itself:

1. BalkanWeb 20 June 2015 Kone “çmend” grekët: Jam 100% shqiptar! ("Kone makes Greeks mad: I'm 100% Albanian")
2. JavaNews 20 June 2015 Panajot Kone: Nuk e harroj që jam shqiptar ("I don't forget that I'm an Albanian")
3. Lajme 30 June 2011 Une, shqiptari i greqizuar qe enderroj Lacion ("I, the Hellenized Albanian who dream about Lazio").

To say the least we have contradicting sources, and that's what I had suggested in the talk page: to contrast sources in Italian, Greek and Albanian and present them all, but the opposing side have ignored my reasonable and policy compliant request and as well as the continuous requests of DevilwearsBrioni. --MorenaReka (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Resnjari

I have been observing this matter now for some time now. Points of dispute are over whether Kone meant "origin" (in Greek) as in heritage or ethnic background or whether origin meant as in he just is from Albania in a geographical and citizenship sense. Regarding the sources, we need Greek translations from editors who have not been involved in the dispute and who have a very good record of being impartial. This is the only way around this to clear up the matter. The news article do attribute these statements to Kone. Its the meaning or meanings that need elaboration. Thoughts from the administrators adjudicating the case on this proposal, of seeking out translations from other editors having a long record of impartiality to determine the matter and establish whether the proposed changes are relevant to the article?Resnjari (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment:Ok, i probably jumped the gun there. Nonetheless in the end some proper impartial translations are going to be needed of Kone's more recent statements regarding himself and his heritage. The issue of Kone's statements regarding his identity reflect the wider identity issues(and fluidity) surrounding some of Albania's Orthodox community (Albanian speakers, Aromanian speakers etc) and their migration to Greece. Regarding this part of the Kone matter at the moment, the sentence in the article needs to be altered as the source quoting Kone makes reference to him saying he has Greek relatives in Albania, not to being of Greek origin. The article itself however has a sentence which purports to interpret that as Kone stating he has an outright Greek origin. Apart from it being wp:original research, it is also distorting Kone's words. Some change is this warranted so the article reflects Kone's words.Resnjari (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Panagiotis Kone discussion

• Volunteer note - First, this case is properly filed, and there has been adequate discussion on the talk page. Second, User:Resnjari has commented. Do they want to be added as a party, or are they making a neutral comment? At this point, we are waiting for statements from the other parties as to whether they want to participate in voluntary moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - For what it's worth, I believe User:Resnjari's summary adds confusion to the discussion, because he seems to have misunderstood the points I put forth. The interpretation of Kone's press release from 2015 is -- although related to the issue at hand -- a separate point that I haven't made here, yet. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Coordinator's note and request for volunteer input: There's a problem here, entirely of my making, which will now need to be resolved. I closed this case as stale earlier this morning due to no volunteer picking it up and recommended a RFC, but I had failed to notice MorenaReka's response yesterday. Had I noted that, then I would have left this open for at least a few more days. Morena properly re-opened the case. However, in the interim DevilWearsBrioni opened an RFC at the article talk page, probably at my recommendation. Now that RFC has been filed, this listing should be closed due to our rule about not taking cases pending in other DR forums or processes (see the top of the page) and RFC's always "trump" DRN filings, causing the DRN listing to be closed (unless the RFC was filed as part of a compromise worked out here and, even then, the listing here will usually be closed) regardless of the order in which they were filed. Under our ordinary procedures, unless DevilWearsBrioni withdraws the RFC or unless it is closed by consensus, this DRN listing should ordinarily be closed. I don't want to appear to be edit warring with Morena, especially since this situation was due to my error, so I'd like for another volunteer to make the call on this situation. My apologies for creating this confusion. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Problem solved due to DevilWearsBrioni withdrawing the RFC. My thanks to him for curing my error. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Kashmiri

Academic sources list the Zahiri among Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence. As to its extinction, the school was indeed extinct for a millennium, however there are sources that say that recently it is being revived. I don't find it convincing to disregard all the academic sources and instead rely only on the Amman Message, a political document that concerns itself with the influential branches of today's Islam. kashmiri ^TALK 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo

This is forum shopping by Misdemeanor, after a bad faith SPI on myself and Kashmiri as well as a circular discussion on the talk page and another noticeboard didn't yield the results he wanted. In short: Misdemeanor has a dogmatic religious belief that Sunni Islam can only ever be four schools of thought, and flatly rejects - and has even tried to outright delete - academic, peer reviewed, mainstream sources that run counter to his religious beliefs. All discussions with him end up going in circles because the bottom line is that, as part of his personal dogma, Zahirism or anything else can never be Sunni regardless of he fact that his definition of Sunni Islam runs counter to the established consensus via RS at Sunni Islam, as well as the fact that multiple reliable sources refer to Zahirism as Sunni and as having experienced a minor revival in the late 20th century.
I know it might seem crass to speak about the other editor, but I am absolutely convinced that 90% of this issue is the editor, not the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The other editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by

Kapu (caste) discussion

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