This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vice regent (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 26 June 2020 (→Summary of dispute by Vice regent). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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.

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.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 08:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Current disputes

Tipu Sultan

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tipu Sultan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Edithgoche (talk · contribs)
• Irshadpp (talk · contribs)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs)
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs)
• D4iNa4 (talk · contribs)
• Abecedare (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

WP:DUE and possibly WP:CENSORED issues. Tipu's religious policy is discussed at lengths in the article's body. There is disagreement on how much of it should be included in the intro, and whether censorship is in place.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Yes, in the talkpage

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by explaining wikipedia policies to users.

Summary of dispute by EdithGoche

In the article's body, Tipu's religious policy is discussed in great detail, in over 3000 of the total 9000 words. If you look at the long intro, a mere one line is allotted for it, thus due weight is not given. I want due weight be given to the topic, taking a similar article Aurangzeb as an example. Edithgoche (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Irshadpp

There is a huge discussion over this issue, which involved by users @RegentsPark:, @Alivardi:, @Aman.kumar.goel:, @Abecedare: etc. Most of the users commented that, there is no expansion required in lead, which gave already picture both views hero vs religious tyrant.Here, @Edithgoche: removed the content In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However...... and added the details of other side. So the balancing of views were destroyed. I revert the mentioned edit, which was again changed by the same user. Now that edit reverted by another user. I do not understand why only me mentioned in his complaint.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan discussion

•  Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this dispute, if you accept. I will first be reviewing the discussion in the talk page. Feynstein (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Feynstein I accept your offer. I am new to DRN. Go through the talk page and tell me if I should invite the other 4 users. I only invited one active user. Edithgoche (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome for moderating between us. I have just noticed this now, kindly refer the talk page for other editors' opinion.--Irshadpp (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edithgoche: and @Irshadpp: Yes I would suggest that you invite the other editors, it can only help the discussions. And also, I opened this case, I think it is a valid DRN case. I will be posting my first statement, and setting things up as soon as I get on my PC (I'm on my phone now and it's not as efficient). Feynstein (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have invited all the editors who took part in the talk. Edithgoche (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - I would like to add a comment only as to what policies and guidelines are applicable. The filer says that there are WP:DUE and WP:CENSORED issues. The policy Misplaced Pages is not censored is usually misunderstood, and has nothing to do with questions of balance or due weight. However, this is an issue of due weight. The editors are requested to follow the instructions of the moderator to reach agreement on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the inputs. I will keep the discussion only applying WP:DUE. Edithgoche (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Edithgoche: I won't be taking this discussion into a censoring issue as I don't think this is the case. Kindly try to be more careful when using this kind of language here, it could be perceived as a personal attack. I strongly suggest that everyone involved assume good faith. Feynstein (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Edithgoche (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

• I first want to thank you for using the DRN to help resolve this dispute. As for the discussion here, try to keep it clear and concise, and try to bring one issue at a time. The issues should be stated in a single question for clarity. Try to agree on which questions to address and in what order. Please discuss the content and avoid shooting the messenger. Please be aware of the the rules and refer to them if you are unsure. I would prefer it if you used the subsections I will be providing for your discussions. If it gets too much into a back a forth discussion please stop and wait for me to assess the current messages. I am not an expert in the field and I don't pretend to be one, so I will need your help for explanations on more particular concepts I might not be aware of. And finally, try to keep the relevant discussions here, it will make everyone's life easier until we can find a resolution. For now, can everyone involved write a short opening statement including any recent development. Thank you. Feynstein (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors

• Example statement. Feynstein (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think it would be wrong to repeat the whole religious policy section in the lede rather than the summarization. Not all Indians criticize him, many Indians consider him their hero. Also, to state again what I said before on the article talk page, another question is that to what extent can we trust the sources about religious persecution? The section, "British accounts," talks about it: "Historians such as Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib, and Saletare, amongst others, argue that controversial stories of Tipu Sultan's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians are largely derived from the work of early British authors (who were very much against Tipu Sultan's independence and harboured prejudice against the Sultan) such as Kirkpatrick and Mark Wilks, whom they do not consider to be entirely reliable and likely fabricated. A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks' account in particular cannot be trusted." I think, even if the lede is expanded, it must be kept neutral. Khestwol (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Request 1) Any reader who only reads the intro would be misled that the body doesn't contain the religious policy in detail. We need to expand the intro. Doesn't have to be an essay, I will settle with just 2 sentences (compromising from my previous 5 sentence edit), one for critical POV and another for praiseful POV. That's all I am asking.

Request 2) The names of the concerned communities involved must be mentioned, with links to the wiki pages that discuss the same. There are separate wiki pages on the captivity of Mangalorean Christians, Kodavas and Nairs. The reader must be able to get to those pages from the intro. Edithgoche (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: @Edithgoche: and @Khestwol: I think both your statements are very reasonable and I would let you carry on with this discussion in here and write my second statement later this week. What I write as suggestions is only a neutral opinion and serves only to keep the discussion going, you can disregard it completely if you both think it is wrong. I think that for historical accounts it is very difficult to assess the credibility of the authors. That's why WP:DUE exists actually. I also think that the two positive and negative sentences proposed by Edithgoche is a very reasonable request and attempt at a concensus resolution. As for the naming of the communities I think it would be removing the goal of the lede, which is a summary of the article at a quick glance. I think it would be better to try and concatenate the religious communities in a single word, like "some religious communities" or other summarizing phrasing. Feynstein (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not really sure this is a candidate for dispute resolution. What we have here is one editor (Edithgoche) who has a preferred text that they want to insert in the lead of the article and is unwilling to listen to other editors. No other editor has supported this version of the text. In short, there is no dispute, but there is merely a recalcitrant editor. My suggestion to Edithgoche they go back to the article talk page and discuss the issue dispassionately without recourse to statements about censorship and due. I personally don't think the lead warrants anything greater than the "he has been criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons" (details are best left to the body) but ... --regentspark (comment) 21:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Let's discuss the content. not contributor. The last para has a WP:POV issue. That Tipu was secular is a view shared by some scholars and sections. To present it as the view of the entire Indian subcontinent is POV. Other scholars/sections consider him a religious tyrant. This has to be changed. Below is the revised version of my previous edit. Suggestions are welcome.

Tipu is criticized by some historians for the destruction of churches and temples, and forced conversions of Mangalorean Catholics and Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. Others dispute the historicity of the claims and applaud him as tolerant for the appointment of Hindus in his administration and land grants to temples.

Thanks for the moderation Feynstein. My Request 2 was not about mentions of community names vs "some religious communities". Community names are already present in the current version - "Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore", and this is agreed by the other editors. The article can be improved by changing "Hindus of Malabar" to "Hindus of Malabar and Coorg" or "Nairs of Malabar and Kodavas of Coorg", whichever the editors agree on. As the article discusses both, I don't think there is a valid reason to mention Malabar and not Coorg.

Khestwol's concern that the claims of the critics are disputed by some historians is addressed. His other concern that some sections consider him a hero is also given due weight. Edithgoche (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Feynstein, I agree with RegentsPark regarding the talk page discussion. But the user who raise this issue here didn't enough support there. Current lead is

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However, he has been criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons.

If the word secular ruler is the center of our discussion, we can make it tolerant ruler. It is very clear from all citations that Tipu was tolerant with all except rebels. If he was not tolerant to other religions, how there were many top admin staffs of him from Hindu religion. In light of citations, we may see that all communities fell in repression of Tipu were rebellious to Tipu's administration (Political). In my opinion, the current lead is sufficient to the article.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the inputs Irshadpp. I think we are making progress in terms of understanding the positions of others. My concern is not with Tipu being presented as a secular or tolerant ruler. My concern is that this POV is being presented as the unanimous view of the entire "post-colonial Indian Subcontinent", which is not the case. Instead we can write, "Some historians applaud him for being secular/tolerant..", as present in my revised version above. Edithgoche (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Edithgoche, if the first part (post-colonial India) is a problem, perhaps we could go with: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his repression of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons That, imo, equally balances both views.--regentspark (comment) 15:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark. Khestwol (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• RegentsPark's version looks good and is an improvement over that currently in the article. I have some suggestions to improve it more.

1) by altering the term repression. The sources use the terms forced conversions and persecutions liberally. I don't see the term repression used anywhere in the four articles . Let's use the term that the critical sources themselves use, to present their view more accurately. Also imo repression does not convey the essence of the criticism as it has multiple interpretations.

2) Hindus of Malabar can be changed to Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. The article discusses both.

3) for political reasons can be removed to maintain WP:DUE. This is the critical view, "According to historian Alan Machado Prabhu, Tipu's reasons for the captivity were primarily religious. He found the social customs of the Christians distasteful, such as their fondness for pork and the social acceptance of alcohol.". This is the non-critical view, "Contemporary scholars like Surendranath Sen, Mohibbul Hasan, N. K. Sinha, and B. Sheik Ali, who have analysed Tipu's religious policies on Christians, conclude that he was not a religious bigot. They argue that forcible conversions to Islam were done purely for political, not religious reasons.. as a punishment for Christians who supported the British.". We see that Political reasons is cited in defense of Tipu. Including it in the second statement dilutes the criticism, effectively giving the critical view one-fourth weight in the whole para.

Here is the improvement I propose,

In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized as a religious bigot for the persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. Edithgoche (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, politics was the main reason so I would suggest mentioning this word first, i.e. "...for both political and religious reasons." Otherwise, RegentsPark's wording is perfect. Khestwol (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• That politics was the main reason represents one POV, the secular view. That religion was the main reason is another POV, the critical view. If we necessarily have to include the reasons, each of the reasons must be placed duly in their own statement, without mixing them up and confusing the readers. My opinion is that reasons are best left to the body and not the intro. Edithgoche (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a good move by Regentspark, Agreed with his opinion. No altering required as this is a balanced sentence. In proposal of Edithgoche word religious bigot and emission of reasons behind his actions (Political & religious) will make the statement biased. To the proposal of Regentspark, addition of Coorgs may be acceptable to all.--Irshadpp (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see "religious bigot" as being neutrally stated. We could replace "repression" with "persecution" though. On reading the stuff in the body (which, if I may add, is full of poorly sourced material and desperately needs to be cleaned up), we need to keep "political" in. My suggestion: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Christians of Mangalore for both religious and political reasons. I suppose Coorg can be added in but it is probably overkill. --regentspark (comment) 13:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here we have two statements for the two views - secular view in the first statement and critical view in the next statement. That Tipu did it for reasons mainly political or purely political is a secular view, not a critical view, used in defense of Tipu by historians like Hasan to show he was not a religious bigot. If we necessarily want to include political reasons, I am open to including it, but we have to do it in the secular statement. It is one thing to say Tipu did it for political reasons, which is correct and represents secular view, and a totally different thing to say, Tipu is criticized for the persecution of .. for both religious and political reasons, which is wrong and represents neither view accurately. It mixes up secular and critical views and presents them as a critical view overall, thus misrepresenting the criticism. I suggest we omit the reasons totally. Stating the reasons in the intro amounts to going into details, which is meant for the body. Most editors just want a short summary of the religious policy, is what the feeling I am getting from the beginning of the discussion.

Since we are having the description secular ruler in the first statement I looked for a similar description for the second statement - religious tyrant, religious bigot, religious fanatic, villain. All these terms are used for the critical view in the sources. "However, the image of Tipu in the memoirs of the people of Coorg, Malabar and South Kanara conforms more to the one presented by Kirkpatrick and Wilks, one of a bitter religious bigot and a ferocious conquistadore." . In the discussions I see other editors using the term religious tyrant when describing the critical view. This term is fine as well. Here is what is suggest, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore.. Edithgoche (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Edithgoche but tyrant, bigot are not acceptable. If you want to drop religious and political reasons, that's fair. But words like tyrant are too loaded to be used here. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I felt the term secular was loaded and wanted it altered, but then I could find a source using this word, now I support keeping it in the interests of objectivity. Most (maybe all) critical sources I read here call him a religious tyrant (or other synonyms). I think we have to keep our personal feelings and interpretations aside and use the words that the sources use, without judging if they're loaded or not. That he was a religious tyrant is the fundamental criticism against Tipu. Without that charge, there is no criticism at all. I suggest we keep it to present the sources objectively. In the talk you said, The original text succinctly summarized the content in the body (hero vs religious tyrant). I thought you would be open to using tyrant instead of bigot. Edithgoche (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I read the section again and perhaps we can go with In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both applauded as a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. I changed criticized to viewed because that may be the more accurate summary word. But, criticized is fine too if that is preferred. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Your version looks good and balanced. I suggest a minor change. We can go either with applauded and criticized for the first and second statements, or considered and viewed, to use similar wording when describing both POVs. I'd say considered and viewed is more accurate wording, but the former is fine too. Edithgoche (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "applauded" is an odd choice of word. So, what we have is: In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. @Irshadpp and Khestwol:, could you comment here.--regentspark (comment) 18:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with this version. Edithgoche (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• If we are using a word religious tyrant, I suggest the removal of the details of it such for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, as there is no details shown for his tolerant attitude to his own Hindu subjects and who were allied with him like Hindu Raja of Cochin. religious tyrant v/s secular ruler, No need details of both.--Irshadpp (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I have some observations regarding this. 1) His fight against British colonialism is described in detail in the above paras. Whereas for the critical view, we are not alloting a separate para, the least we can do is mention these details in one sentence here. 2) The body discusses the persecutions critically in about 2500 words (let's say we trim it down to half). Just giving it two words can seriously compromise WP:DUE. 3) I wanted to add more details like his land grants to temples and appoint of hindu officers to the secular view, and destruction of churches and temples and forced conversions to the critical view. I think the above version by RegentsPark is a good compromise between too much detail and maintaining WP:DUE Edithgoche (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Hello again, I am sorry I didn't have time to make my second statement yet, don't worry it is still coming. My week turned into utter chaos at work... it was pretty unexpected. I will try to write it tonight. Sorry. Feynstein (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

• Hello editors. I am sorry if my second statement took so long, I had a very rough week at work and was very tired every time I got back home. As you might know I am a nuclear physicist working in industrial radiography and we had a surprise inspection from the nuclear safety commission with 2 days notice. So we had to go through all our documentation and all our blueprints for shielding and make sure everything was in order, that we did not forget anything. We passed with flying color, but it is pretty exhausting hahaha.
• As for the subject matter itself, I agree that non-neutral words like "bigot" should not be used unless it is a quote from a text. But in order for you to get the right information, I collected a few wikipedia reference pages for consultation. WP:RNPOV, MOS:WTW and WP:ATT. Secular is a perfectly acceptable work and is neutral. Here is the definition: "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."
• And to conclude, I think that RegentsPark brought a reasonable compromise and I suggest the two other involved editors, namely Edithgoche and Khestwol, start working on a good final phrasing for the compromise. I suggest that for now the discussion should focus exclusively on this compromise, as it is our best bet at a resolution. I also suggest that the editors present their version of the phrasing in the sections below in the same form as I will be formatting them.Feynstein (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Omg I almost forgot Irshadpp sorry :P. Good editing everyone :-) Feynstein (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Formatting example

• "Candidate sentence"
  • Approve Explanation by original poster of the sentence
  • Disapprove Explanation for disapproval
• "Next sentences until all parties agree on a final version"
  • Approve or Disapprove etc, etc. Feynstein (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism. However, he is also criticized for his repression, for both political and religious reasons, against Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, and for his clamping down on Mappila Muslims. Khestwol (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove. Reasons same as discussed above. 1) First statement being presented as the view of the entire subcontinent, which is not really the case. 2) The term repression is not sourced, persecution is. 3) reasons are best left to the body 4) There is no source which 'criticizes' the clamping down on Mappila muslims. Edithgoche (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with RegentsPark's latest version, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. Edithgoche (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• As I mentioned above, if we are using the word religious tyrant, I suggest the removal of the details of it such for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore, as there is no details shown for his tolerant attitude to his own Hindu subjects and who were allied with him like Hindu Raja of Cochin etc. religious tyrant v/s secular ruler, No need details of both. Otherwise we may tell like this Tipu was criticized for his persecution towards Hindu rebels of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore--Irshadpp (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove I have to disagree with the word 'rebel'. That his actions were motivated by the rebel nature of the communities is the secular view. It cannot be included in the critical view. Edithgoche (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

What Edithgoche means by secular view and critical view. Here our references are historical, not secular or critical. We have two streams on historians regarding religious attitude of Tipu Sultan. I would suggest to split fighting to British and religious policy separate.

1. In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a brave ruler who fought against British colonialism. His religious tolerance was documented by many historians through his activities such as appointing Hindu Officers in key administrative positions and land grants and endowments to Hindu temples. On other side, Tipu criticized as a religious tyrant for his persecution towards Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious. Or, same suggested by Regentspark, but without word religious tyrant.
2. In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is both considered to be a secular ruler who fought against British colonialism as well as criticized for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore--Irshadpp (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove Yes, we present historical references. But two opposing POVs exist regarding the same, which I call secular vs critical to help illustrate my points better. You can call them by any other names.

The first two sentences are merely POV, but they are being presented as the truth. Also, I don't see any source for brave ruler.

The terms bigot, tyrant, fanatic, villain are used in the sources. There is no rationale to remove tyrant. Edithgoche (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What I am proposing is, if we are using word religious tyrant, then no need details of accused atrocities. The word itself enough to balance secular ruler. If we add the details, we must add for both views like below.

• In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a ruler who fought against British colonialism. His religious tolerance was documented by many historians through his activities such as appointing Hindu Officers in key administrative positions and land grants and endowments to Hindu temples. On other side, Tipu viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution towards Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious.

brave-omitted.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Disapprove Same reasons stated above. First two sentences are POV, being presented as truth. If details are to be included we can use a modified version of my original proposal which presents POVs as POV and not as truth. Tipu is viewed as a religious tyrant by some sections for the destruction of churches and temples, and forced conversions of Mangalorean Catholics and Hindus of Malabar and Coorg. Others consider him a secular ruler for the appointment of Hindus in his administration and grants to temples and that his treatment of rebels were for political reasons. Edithgoche (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here we are submitting both POVs, Tolerant & Tyrant. Both are POVs, being presented as truth. The main point is both are POVs not mine or yours, but historians. While British writers on that age painted Tipu as religious tyrant or bigot, modern world historians suspect the authenticity of this records. They had research over this and found British interest to paint him with these labels. While Tipu was religious tolerant with His Hindu subjects and Hindu-Christian allies like Cochin, France etc., his treatments to rebels of Malabar, Coorg and Mangalore were the basis of criticizing as Religious tyrant....... --Irshadpp (talk) 07:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I got caught up in RL issues! I'm ok with either the ...secular... ...religious tyrant... (acceptable to Edithgoche) or the ...secular... ...persecution of... (acceptable to Irshadpp) versions (with a slight preference for the latter). But, the longer detailed version, as well as the Khestwol version at the top of the section, are too much for the lead. It looks like we have an impasse here. @Feynstein:, any suggestions on how to resolve this impasse?--regentspark (comment) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Irshadpp: His religious tolerance was documented by many historians. This is a POV statement. It presents him as tolerant, a POV disputed by others. Whether he is presented as secular or tyrant it must be accompanied by qualifiers clearly indicating that it's a POV, such as Some historians consider him tolerant. Look at the phrase, which historians are debating over the reasons that political or religious How is it that when he is presented as tolerant, historians aren't mentioned to be debating, which they are, but when criticized, historians are debating? The entire para has POV issues. Also, this para is bigger than the detailed version I proposed above. Since our goal is to keep intro short, I suggest we go with regentspark's latest version, which is short and acceptable for me. Edithgoche (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have only one objection with Regentspark's latest version, which is Religious tyrant + Details of atrocities to the rebels (Not hindu, christian or muslim). Either details or the word religious tyrant to be omitted.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The last para gives two POVs, each disputed by the other, and all the above paras give undisputed facts. So we can write this fact in a para above, This fact is not disputed as even secular POV scholars agree to this. Contemporary scholars like Surendranath Sen, Mohibbul Hasan, N. K. Sinha, and B. Sheik Ali, who have analysed Tipu's religious policies on Christians, conclude that he was not a religious bigot. They argue that forcible conversions to Islam were done purely for political, not religious reasons.. as a punishment for Christians who supported the British. The dispute only lies in two things 1) whether the numbers are exaggerated? 2) political or religious reasons?. These seem to be significant events and deserve a mention.

And in the last para describing his legacy we can present the two POVs, In post-colonial Indian subcontinent, he is considered to be a secular ruler by some and religious tyrant by others. Edithgoche (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• What about facts about his tolerant attitude to his subjects and allies. If you are adding details, both side details to be there.--Irshadpp (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We could give both details like this, Tipu's religious policy is controversial. He is both considered to be a secular ruler for his grants to temples and appointment of Hindus in his administration, as well as viewed as a religious tyrant for his persecution of Hindus of Malabar and Coorg and Christians of Mangalore. I think this gives due weight to both views. I am omitting fight against British as it is given in above paras. This para gives POVs only about his religious policy. Edithgoche (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Hi everyone! There is no obligation, but can you please try to use the formatting I proposed? There seems to be valid consensus propositions mixed in the comments. For clarity, could someone resume the working phrasing?
• Like that? Feynstein (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

• The debate seems to be going well. Since it is getting a bit crammed up there with all the replies and such, I suggest you continue your discussion down here with concise statements. I also want to weigh in regarding the usage of wording like Tyrant and such. If these words are included, they must be within quotation marks. As per WP:NPOV it is essential that the wording of the encyclopedia itself stays neutral. So those words must come from the litterature, or from historical reports and such. I would also like for the editors to start writing candidate sentences and focus on the final goal of getting a concensus. Thank you! Feynstein (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The word tyrant is sourced. Similar words like bigot, villain and fanatic are used in the critical sources. We are merely presenting what the sources say. I don't think it has be within quotation marks, when we are not doing the same for the word secular which represents the other POV. Edithgoche (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Edithgoche: I know those words are sourced, but they are clearly pejorative. And very much more than secular, which only means no link to religion. What I only want to say is be mindful of the wording and make sure it is not the encyclopedia that uses these words, but the sources themselves. Feynstein (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• David Tornheim (talk · contribs)
• Cmonghost (talk · contribs)
• Jogarz1921 (talk · contribs)
• ReyHahn (talk · contribs)
• Jamez42 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There has been a long lasting disagreement in the article regarding the portrayal of Venezuela in the article, if any: whether its section should be split or merged, and which content should it include.

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

Discussion in the article throughout several months:

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020

Related discussions in main article:

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#RFC on Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#Venezuela 2

Admin El C has advised the DRN if the last discussion became stale.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Helping to decide if the section should be split or merged, and which content should be included.

Summary of dispute by David Tornheim

This DR has serious process issues, in terms of cherry-picked participants and failure to notify at the pages affected.

Cmonghost's analysis is on point, except I think the scope is straightforward: Regime change is what the WP:RS says it is. If the WP:RS says it is "regime change", then it is regime change.

Notrium made some valid points: .

Jamez42 has already been sanctioned and restricted (0RR/1RR) for poor behavior at the regime change articles, where he repeatedly deleted well-sourced content about U.S. involvement in Venezuela when he didn't get his way.

The previously discussed unnecessary and unpopular "accusations" section is Jamez42's creation, and he can't seem to accept the fact that there is little support of it.

ReyHahn said In the case of Venezuela the section included mostly accusations by Maduro administration itself.

That's because Jamez42 added almost all of it: , , .

The addition of extensive content of unsubstantiated accusations and their political expedience muddies the water. I both discussed trimming and tried to delete some of it, but got reverted.

I believe that the WP:RS that discusses and/or takes seriously the U.S.'s involvement in regime change is what we need, and mention of accusations should be fairly minor as discussed in that section.

Ultimately, this dispute was created by Jamez42, and the best way to handle it IMHO is for Jamez42 to take a breather from Venezuela, Guaido and Maduro related articles. Regardless, I will do my part to work collaboratively with him.

I am happy to work on an RfC(s) about this to get more non-involved editors to comment once the WP:FRS is working. Such RfC(s) should be prepared and discussed on article's talk page, not in this limited forum of editors cherry-picked by Jamez42. If some non-involved editor(s) like Notrium or Robert McClenon want to help with that, I would welcome it. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: 09:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Per Robert McClenon's request Will each editor please make a brief statement about what they want to be in the RFC? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion.: I have created the below section for my proposed potential RfC questions. I will fill it in shortly. If preferred, I can limit to one proposed question.

As you can see from above, I prefer to provide readers who want to dig deeper with links to previous discussions. I propose to do that, while recognizing the importance of neutrality in RfCs (WP:RFCBRIEF and WP:WRFC). If such links are unhelpful or need to be stated in a different form, please let me know.

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your attention to this. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DT's Proposed RfC

This RfC relates to these two articles:

• United States involvement in regime change
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Questions:

1. Should Venezuela be the only country in the above two articles to be listed under a separate section called "Accusations" as seen in this version?
2. Should the accusations added by these, three, edits be included, not included, or trimmed from the article, etc.?

• Previous discussions: , , , , ,

End of Proposal by --David Tornheim (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note: I had considered adding questions about the scope of these two articles, but I believe this would muddy the water. This is a content dispute only related to U.S. involvement in Venezuela, and it should not spill over and undermine the stable content of the long-established scope defined by the WP:LEDE of the United States involvement in regime change article. Nor should it undermine the stable portions describing U.S. meddling in other countries' governments. I have noticed some editors are heavily and sometimes almost exclusively focused on Venezuela content. I think it would be a disservice to Misplaced Pages to allow their desire to have specific things said (or not said) about Venezuela weaken the content of other subjects they do not care about. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cmonghost

In my view there are three main issues with Venezuela content in this article. The first is that Jamez42's proposed division into two sections, "history" and "accusations", is arbitrary and appears to mostly reflect their personal opinions about which allegations are credible and which are not. Instead, we should agree on content to include in a single section, with appropriate context from reliable sources for each point. There is also no precedent on the page for splitting sections in this way, and it leaves Venezuela as the only subsection in the "Accusations" section, which is not good article structure. The second is that there is no agreement between editors about what constitutes "involvement in regime change". For instance, reliable sources do not dispute the fact that the U.S. (through the National Endowment for Democracy) funded organizations involved in the 2002 coup (source), some editors seem to believe that this does not constitute involvement in regime change (though such editors have been vague about how they would define the term). Finally, there is a tendency on any articles related to current Venezuelan politics to paste in an extremely long paragraph about how Maduro has committed election fraud, the crisis is his fault, etc.; regardless of whether this stock paragraph is accurate, it is not directly related to the actual subject of the article, and appears to serve mostly as editors' justification for US regime change efforts. This content should not be included on this page. In general, the text has an explicitly anti-Maduro framing, e.g., the only discussion of U.S. sanctions, which are imposed for the explicit purpose of regime change, is that Maduro exploited them to "bump up his approval ratings" (which is not even directly supported by the source cited). — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jogarz1921

I don't think the inclusion of Venezuelan event since in the article should be particularly controversial. Since early 2019, US and the majority of Latin American nations have openly stated, numerous times, that they want to see Maduro and his government go. Regime change in Venezuela is a public effort by numerous countries to remove the authoritarian regime, not a conspiracy theory. I think the key problem here is the inclusion of pre-2019 events. The evidence that the US was actively attempting regime change during this period is scant at best and comes mostly from unreliable sources. Maduro may claim that the collapse of his country's economy was a US-engineered effort at regime change, but there's simply no good evidence that this is the case. Rather, all available evidence shows that the mid-2010s economic collapse was the result of failed economic policy. Until very recently, US policy towards Venezuela was predominantly disinterest. I don't think the baseless deflections of Maduro and Chavez have the same notoriety as actual, confirmed US regime change efforts. I am also concerned that including such accusations alongside well-verified historical events will create a false equivalence between the two. As such, I believe pre-2019 accusations should not be included on the page.Jogarz1921 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ReyHahn

The problem is related to a larger issue that is part of United States involvement in regime change (USiirg). There is no clear consensus yet on what is an involvement in regime change. USiirg and USiirg in Latin America seem to be articles to compile all foreign actions and plans of United States without critical view on them or context, especially if it is in the news. Users are encouraged to add all informations they find on US and x country, sometimes in a "wrong deeds" manner. US authorities position on the subject and their international position of other countries involved is often avoided. On the other hand, "x" position is always important in these articles, independent of evidence. Sometimes opinion articles are used because they are authored by an "expert" (but what's an expert in "involvement in regime change"?). In the case of Venezuela the section included mostly accusations by Maduro administration itself. Maduro administration frequently accuses all problems in Venezuela on foreign causes (US, Europe, Israel, Colombia, Brazil,etc). Some users seem to want Venezuela in the article either without the context or with accusations by Maduro administration without further evidence. Jamez42 created an accusation section for this cause, that went on for some months with a POV template, but as soon a the POV template was considered deprecated and was removed (as discussion stopped during those months), the content was merged back to the main section, a move that was asked to be reverted as it was done without previous announcement (the content could have also been split between accusations and main, but this was not the case either). Briefly: involvement in regime change is ill defined, context is discouraged (by some users), accusations are taken as facts and separating sections for accusations apparently is seen as arbitrary. Under these conditions, the article seems to be pushed for anti-US bias.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed RfC by Jamez42

This RfC relates to these two articles:

• United States involvement in regime change
• United States involvement in regime change in Latin America

Questions

1. Should content about Venezuela be included in the article?
2. Should its content be merged or split into an "Accusations" section?
3. Should content about the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt be included in the article?
4. Should content regarding official statements between 2002 and 2020 be included in the article?
5. Should content about the Venezuelan presidential crisis be included in the article?

Previous discussions

• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Unnecessary "accusations" section
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#RFC on Venezuela
• Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 3#Venezuela 2

• Note: Questions 3, 4 and 5 are dependent on the second one, which is about the scope of the section, just like all of them are dependent on the first question, which is the inclusion of the content. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

United States involvement in regime change in Latin America discussion

• Volunteer Note - User:David Tornheim appears to have requested assistance with a Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in that regard. I am alternatively willing to moderate, but David Tornheim appears to be making a reasonable request that we use an RFC rather than facilitated discussion.

First statement by Volunteer

Will each editor please make a brief statement about what they want to be in the RFC? Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

First statements by Editors

Before all else, I would like to thank @Robert McClenon: for volunteering and helping with the current dispute.

My experience with RfCs regarding Venezuela is that, given its polarizing nature, it effectively turns into a poll. Judging from the article's talk page and statements here, everyone appears to be unsatisfied by the current version, and issuing a ingles binary yes or no question (eg: Should the section be merged or split) risks leaving concerns unanswered, including about policies of verifiability and neutrality. The RfC should discuss which will be the content, but I'm not aware if the RfC format allows this and I would like to be more familiar with this; I hope that it is the case. Robert, do you have knowledge about RfCs about similarly controversial topics, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict? Perhaps we could learn from them to seek the best outcome.

I am also very disheartened to see that David Tornheim decided to cast aspersions against me for starting this request. This venue was recommended by the very admin that placed the restrictions; seeking alternative ways to discuss and seek consensus should not be a reason for reprehension, even less to suggest that an editor should stop editing in the topic. David was the user that restarted the issue, despite not having consensus among the editors involved. This dispute is long lasting as extensive discussions on the issue show, and to say that I'm the one that "created" it is an oversimplification to say the least. If a RfC is started it's important to uphold civility, precisely to ensure collaborative discussion, which I'm looking forward.

I pinged essentially all of the editors involved in the most recent discussion (Talk:United States involvement in regime change in Latin America#Venezuela 2020) and I don't have any problem with inviting uninvolved editors; I only ask for the issues mentioned above to be considered. I will probably make a summary in the article's talk page hoping to make the procedure easier. Many thanks in advance! --Jamez42 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Faizhaider (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute is about the removal of this content. I oppose its removal while another editor supports the removal. We have tried resolving the issue on the talk page here, to no avail.

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

Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam#'Usuli versus Akhbari' section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I’d think a neutral, outside arbiter can help give an unbiased, experienced opinion to help resolve the dispute.

Summary of dispute by Faizhaider

The allegation on me is severely incorrect and is based on incorrect facts. The party reporting me, ie IPs 49.xxx.xxx.xxx have been involved in edit-warring on the page for long. Despite multiple pleadings for engagement on talk-page they didn't did it. They went to talk-page only when the page was semi-protected. The discussion on talk page (which was initiated by me) is not concluded yet, but the IPs seem to be in some sort of hurry and have reported me here. Interestingly these IPs have been involved in disruptive-editing for at least 5 years (I didn't investigated before that) and have had conflict with many users like, ParthikS8, Snowsky Mountain, FreeatlastChitchat, ԱշոտՏՆՂ, Jim1138, Rsrikanth05, FoCuSandLeArN, CatcherStorm, pushing the page into semi-protection multiple times. I myself have been involved on page for at least 10 years and have been mostly bold & assuming good faith in my fight against disruptive editing.--Fzc_s 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam discussion

• Volunteer Note - Does User:Faizhaider want to engage in moderated discussion with the unregistered editor? If so, I am willing to moderate. Otherwise I will tell them to discuss on the article talk page (although they are implying that the unregistered editor doesn't discuss). Will each editor please make a one-or-two-sentence statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon, yes I would be more than happy to discuss under your guidance. 49.180.128.47 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: My apologies, I missed your address to me due to the typo in my username; Anyways, it'll be great if you moderate, but I'll prefer to have the discussion on article's talk-page, as, a discussion is already underway there. You can start it by reviewing the discussion "'Usuli versus Akhbari' section" @ Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Thanks.--Fzc_s 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - Discuss at Talk:Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Ingush people

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ingush people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Deni Mataev (talk · contribs)
• Kisteti (talk · contribs)
• Sextus Caedicius (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute over the number of Ingush people in the infobox. The numbers have been reverted several times to what they were before the edits of Kisteti, but he edits it back again to what he believes to be correct without first forming a consensus with others.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Kisteti

Summary of dispute by Sextus Caedicius

Ingush people discussion

• Volunteer comment - @Deni Mataev: Can you please inform the other editors of this DRN request on their talk pages? Also, with regards to this comment: "A final arbitration from moderators or any third party of authority to decree a consensus." Please be aware that DRN cannot provide this (nor can anyone else). We provide a sane format for discussion and mediate between parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Aleister Crowley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dereck Camacho (talk · contribs)
• Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The article of Aleister Crowley has the pseudoscientific fringe claim that under the special name of “Agent 666” Crowley was a secret agent spy at the service of the UK government doing such adventures that range from spying on Irish rebels to review oil resources in Mexico and so on. Of this fringe theory we only have the authors’ word as they do not provide any sort of evidence whatsoever, the entire justification and even the redacting of Agent 666 adventures are unproven speculation on behalf of two very imaginative authors, but that present no proof of their claims. Even the redacting of the text in almost every instace say “this guy and this guy claim that Crowley was ”.

Some of this claims even violates the policies on Biographies of Living People (which despite the name apply to Crowley as they apply to people with less than 150 years dead) as some can be considered slanderous, for example they claim that Crowley willingly started conflict in the Golden Dawn under government orders to destroy the organization from inside, not only a very outstanding claim but one that if true would stain Crowley’s reputation in the Occult world. Paraphrasing Sagan outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.

Although the information deserve to be removed, I started with what I considered was a reasonable compromise, not to remove it but to place it all in one separate section as policy guidelines recommend regarding unproven facts and pseudoscience. However user Midnightblueowl rejected the idea and with no proposal for any other compromiso refuses to any change on the status quo.

A Request for Comment was open but was basically a tie, however among the many commenters the supporters of placing the fringe theory in a special section make some very solid arguments about the pseudohistorical nature of the claims. As can be seen here

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

This request for comment:

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By locating the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand.

Summary of dispute by Midnightblueowl

For those who are unfamiliar with the situation, Aleister Crowley always claimed to have worked for British intelligence services while living in the United States during World War I. In 2008, Richard B. Spence (Professor of History at the University of Idaho) published a book arguing that Crowley actually worked for British intelligence for much of his life and that this was the reason for many of his foreign travels. This was partly based on an article that Spence had earlier published in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. Spence's ideas were subsequently endorsed by the historian Tobias Churton, then lecturer at the University of Exeter, in his 2011 book Aleister Crowley: The Biography (Churton has also published several further books on Crowley and contributed a chapter to the edited volume Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism, published by Oxford University Press in 2012). Another recent academic commentator on Crowley, Marco Pasi (Associate Professor at the University of Amsterdam), devoted much attention to the argument in his Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, even though he did not ultimately accept it. It is a disputed argument, most certainly, and has been presented as such within the GA-rated article for many years.

In May, Dereck appeared on the Crowley article Talk Page, insisting that this argument is "ludacris" and "pseudoscience" (even though it doesn't actually pretend to be science) and thus should not be presented in any way that gives it credence to the reader. Citing WP:Fringe, Dereck has argued that all mention of the argument should be moved to a single paragraph in the article, rather than being integrated at other junctures of the text, as it has been for many years. I very much doubt that Dereck is actually familiar with the published sources on the Spence-Churton argument; I also believe that they are making the argument appear more sensationalistic than it actually is, largely by repeatedly making a point out of the somewhat unfortunate title of Spence's book, Secret Agent 666. (The fact that above, Dereck says Spence claimed "Secret Agent 666" was Crowley's codename just goes to show that Dereck clearly has not read his book, as Spence never claimed this). The reality is that it is certainly a disputed and circumstantial argument (I for one don't actually believe it), but that does not make it pseudohistory, which seems to be the thrust of Dereck's argument. It is a minority view among historians, and is presented as such in the article.

Two days after Dereck initially raised their concerns, I initiated an RfC on the issue. This has proven inconclusive, albeit with a very small majority in opposition to Dereck's proposed changes (five to four). Hence, why I assume that Dereck has brought the issue here. Unfortunately, their approach to dealing with this issue has been slightly combative, both to myself and to User:Josh Milburn, who was one of those who contributed to the RfC. Aside from misrepresenting the nature of the Spence-Churton argument, Dereck has also made exaggerated and outright erroneous claims on multiple occasions during the debate: for instance stating that a "clear majority" of RfC commentators backed them, when it was in fact only a minority, that the article presently mentions the Spence-Churton argument "in almost every paragraph" when in reality it mentions it in only five out of sixty-five paragraphs, and that WP:Biographies of Living Persons applies to someone who died in 1947, which is total nonsense. I welcome the thoughts of additional editors, although I would caution against accepting Dereck's characterisation of the Spence-Churton argument and the debate more broadly too literally.

Aleister Crowley discussion

• Volunteer comment - I'll be happy to pick this up once I hear from both parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Volunteer Comment - I will ask a question, which doesn't have much impact on the dispute about the article content, but it does have to do with what policies should be considered. I saw a comment that the biographies of living persons policy applies to persons who have been dead for less than 150 years. I cannot find such a policy. It applies to persons who were born less than 115 years ago, unless there is a reported date of death. Crowley was born more than 150 years ago, and his death is included in his article (as reported by reliable sources). The BLP policy also sometimes applies to persons who have died recently, especially if there is controversy about their death (e.g., George Floyd). If I have misread the policy or have failed to read part of the policy, please provide me with a link to the applicable part of the policy. However, there is a valid content dispute, and the policies that do apply include verifiability, reliable sources, and due weight. I will let the moderator facilitate a resolution, but please do not cite the biographies of living persons policy unless it applies. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Deleted Note The filing editor has also reported the other editor at WP:ANI for a civility violation. This noticeboard does not consider a dispute that is also pending in another forum including a conduct forum. This dispute is closed. After the thread at WP:ANI is resolved, if there is still a content dispute among survivors, a new case can be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)}} Case unclosed. The complaint about incivility was against another editor, and has been closed anyway with an admonition. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

After reading the policy again I see it was 115 years after birth and not 150 after death as I though to remember. And for the record the RfC is in a tie now again (5-5). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator statement

Thank you both for your contributions. You've both indicated that you're amenable to compromise, and that's always a good sign. Here are my rules for the discussion:

• Don't be mean to each other.
• Please be concise.

So where can we find compromise? Because the RfC was inconclusive, there is not a consensus to separate the espionage claims into their own section. Neither is there a consensus for status quo, because status quo is why we're here.

• @Midnightblueowl: is there be a version of the article with an espionage subsection that is acceptable to you?
• @Dereck Camacho: is there be a version of the article without an espionage subsection that is acceptable to you?
• To both, is there another compromise idea that either of you have had that I'm not seeing?

You can answer these in the negative. Also, pretend you're responding to me and me only. Past this point, I don't care what one editor says about another, and you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm neutral in this.

Also, one more question for Dereck Camacho: Since this is an issue of due weight, it would seem that adding a section dedicated to the espionage claim does not alter the balance (indeed, it would be added to the TOC). Is it your concern that, because the espionage claims are placed throughout the article, that there would seem to be a sort of subtle insistence that Crowley was a spy? Short of making the spy claim its own section, is there a way to mitigate this effect without removing the claims entirely?

Again:

• Don't be mean to each other. Or to me, for that matter
• Please be concise.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Now that you mention it, it could be indeed that having its own section do not solve the issue of undue weight. One option that comes to my mind is having the spionage claims in the form of notes maybe, so that they're not directly on the text but the reader can check them if they want. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Footnotes are generally used for clarification, because they must be linked to from the article proper. That is, even with a footnote you would need something within the article proper that makes the claim. So information cannot be relegated this way.

I am curious about your misgivings with the current article. Looking at the RfC, it appears that a concern is the "interwoven" nature of the claim. One of the comments (by User:AllyD) summed it up well by saying: "Just reading the present article, though, I am inclined to agree with Dereck Camacho's original point above: in summarising Crowley’s various movements and disputes, there is too much interwoven suggestion of the British Secret Service as motivator." Would you agree that this is a significant problem with the current version of the article? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I do. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait for Midnightblueowl to respond before proceeding. I think we can reach a resolution fairly quickly. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Playlet (talk · contribs)
• Wollers14 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The presence of Niskanen's election ratings, which appear in both the article about the 2020 United States Senate elections (and has a lengthy discussion there) and the presidential election. It was present in the article before being removed multiple times by one editor (who tried to do the same thing at the senate page) We have both agreed to abide by any resolution

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

Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings#Niskanen Ratings Talk:2020 United States Senate elections#Removal of Niskanen Center ratings

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ruling one way or the other on the dispute, whether to maintain the status quo from before the dispute where Niskanen was included, or to change the table and leave the data out.

Summary of dispute by Wollers14

2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings discussion

Moderator's 1st Statement

Before we start any kind of discussion, Playlet (talk · contribs) please place the notification of open DRN on Wollers14 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I'm familiar with the material and neutral so I'm willing to moderate this dispute. HOWEVER, It looks like you are both wanting an admin to come in and make a decision- that is not what the DRN does- we moderate discussions and hopefully facilitate a compromise. I am happy to do that, but it looks like a WP:RFC may be more appropriate to try to find a consensus. If you are both willing to work towards an agreement here, please confirm and also state what you would like to see happen by the end of the discussion. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening discussion and statements

Fair enough. I have taken it to Misplaced Pages:Third opinion

@Playlet: @Nightenbelle: Hello here is something I am willing to do. We can keep the Niskanen ratings up for now until more reputable ratings like 538, Fox, or CNN etc come out. After at least one of those come out we can remove the ratings because I would like to give Bitecofer one more election to pass to see if her predictions line up before adding them to any future pages for permanent use. There's my proposal. Wollers14 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay since you have opened a WP:3O I am going to place this DRN on hold since we do not encourage multiple open cases in multiple places at once. If this is resolved by the 3rd opinion- wonderful, we will close this, if not- we can re-start this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Seal Team Six

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Seal Team Six (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Konli17 (talk · contribs)
• BusterD (talk · contribs)
• Garuda28 (talk · contribs)
• Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)
• Buckshot06 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a difference of opinion over some of the terms being used in the article. Some editors contend these are military jargon which sometimes veer into euphemism, and are thus unsuitable for use on Misplaced Pages. Other editors counter that these are widely-used terms that are explained fully at their linked articles, and thus present no problem.

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

Talk:SEAL_Team_Six#Active_edit_war_on_this_page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By pointing us toward relevant guidelines we may be unaware of, or toward relevant discussions on similar topics where a policy was decided.

Summary of dispute by BusterD

I have exactly one edit to this page, a reversion on May 15 I felt was a BLP vio because it was unsourced. IMHO, the content of that edit is unrelated to the content in this dispute. Later that day I saw a series of edits (, , , , , , , ) which seemed to indicate possible 3RR violations, and clearly demonstrated an edit war in progress. My part in this has been to create a talk thread in which to discuss the dispute (), a thank you post to those who chose to engage in discussion (), and a notification (and request for eyes) at the relevant WikiProject talk space (). I have made no comment on the content under disagreement. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted. If you want to participate you are welcome to, but if you do not want to- no problem there either. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As the editor who created the talk thread, I chose to stay out of the fray; I did however read the discussion as it unfolded. To my reading it was relatively obvious that the filer of this process (Konli17) was unable to find much talk page support for their position. One of the last comments by one opposed to the filer's position was a suggestion to: "use a form of dispute resolution to get a consensus or drop it." So here we are. I am satisfied that there's discussion instead of edit warring in live pagespace. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Garuda28

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67

Summary of dispute by Buckshot06

Seal Team Six discussion

Moderator's First Statement

Good Morning, or whatever time it is where you are, I am volunteering to mediate this discussion. I have reviewed the discussion on the talk page and am familiar with the issue and material, though neutral on the specific issue. Before we begin I have a few questions. 1st- does everyone agree to participate in the discussion here? and 2- do you all understand, this is a mediation board, we cannot impose or enforce decisions- we simply help generate and direct conversation until all parties agree on a solution.

Assuming participation and understanding of purpose, I would ask that each editor begin by stating their concerns and hoped resolution clearly and concisely. Please focus on your own specific concerns and goals- and do not engage in back and forth debate yet or speculation on other parties concerns. This process is designed to remove the inconsequential side issues (squirrels) and let us focus on the heart of what is being contested. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement

So, I took a look at what links to the definition of Direct Actions- and I found the term is not used exclusively by American forces- its also used by forces based in Denmark, Israel, Canada, India, Germany, South Africa, New Zeland, Singapore, Italy, Norway, Indonesia, Australia, Slovakia, and Malaysia to name a few. So I'm not sure why its use for seal team six is controversial- would you please explain that in more detail please? Just to be sure I understand completely. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Participant Discussion

Konli17

Many articles to do with Western or Western-aligned militaries often use Western military jargon instead of clearer terms. And while that's not ideal, it's worse when those terms are euphemisms; Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms gives a military euphemism as an example. It's also odd that these terms are never used to describe the actions of enemies of the militaries concerned, adding to the perception that euphemism is their purpose. I've no objection to the use of the term, but with explanation, and not at the cost of NPOV or precision. Konli17 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct- the MOS does give a military example- however, on the WP page of the example provided, collateral_damage- it specifically says it is "criticized for its use as a euphemism" and it does not have a specific definition, where as Direct Action is not identified on its page as a euphemism and does have a specific list of activities that it may be used to represent. In fact, the WP page for Direct Action gives very clear, specific definition, while the page for collateral damage does not. I guess that is my confusion here. Direct Action is not a term used exclusively by USA and its allies- Slovakia, Malaysia, South Africa- none of these are traditional US allies- although they are not US enemies either. South Africa and Malaysia cannot be considered truly "Western" either. While I am not aware of any terrorist and/or Non-government combatant groups actively using the term, I'm not aware of any restriction on such use either. So again, I must ask- with that clear definition in place, what makes this word a Euphemism other than that it is mainly (but not exclusively) used by western military units? I'm sorry for my confusion. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

From the lede - "direct action (short duration strikes or small scale offensive actions), often against high-value targets." Direct action against HVTs translates as assassination or abduction. Why not just say that? Both South Africa and Malaysia are Western-aligned, unlike e.g. Syria and North Korea. Konli17 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Third Statement

We need participation from others involved, or this will have to be closed due to lack of participation. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Paradise Chronicle (talk · contribs)
• عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs)
• Konli17 (talk · contribs)
• Shadow4dark (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about one quote of the Washington Post which says:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

Amr ibn Kulthoum (from now on Amr) and I have a different point of view of what belongs into the article. Amr insists that the quote has to be included as it is from the Washington Post. But Tell Abyad wasn't renamed to Gire Spi and the Kurds have also not detached Tell Abyad from the Raqqa Governorate "unilaterally" , then Latin script is current in Syria, too. The "welcome to Tell Abyad" plate stayed at the entrance of the town throughout all the time the Kurds co-governed the town. The Kurds only allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled as well. Also, Tell Abyad wasn't a part of the Raqqa Governorate as it was captured from ISIS by the Kurds. The Wapo article is from 2015, the Raqqa Governorate was in large parts in possession of ISIS until 2016, Raqqa only fell in October 2017. I say we can mention that the Kurds allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled and printed as well, instead of renaming the town from Tell Abyad to Gire Spi and that Tell Abyad was included into the Kobane Canton. But not "unilaterally" detached, it was detached before, too and is detached now as well. I guess the points are extensively present in the discussion mentioned below.

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

]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you could look at the arguments presented in the discussion and then comment on them. Maybe you bring us to reach an agreement about what of the disputed content is to stay and what has to be removed.

Summary of dispute by Amr ibn Kulthoum

I had already presented my arguments in the Talk page. I am not really sure what User Paradise is complaining about, besides simply asking to remove or modify the direct quote from Washington Post, which is one of the most credible sources used in Kurdish-related articles, compared to ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, etc. that they prefer using. Here are my arguments to debunk Paradise's claims:

1. Kurdish sites are full of news of attaching Tel Abyad to their newly formed Kobani Canton, see this map, detaching it from Raqqa Governorate, and pro-Kurdish users here (like Paradise and Konli) have filled WP with this kind of information and maps including the Tel Abyad page itself (see Rojava, although updated since the town was captured to Turkish and SNA forces). Also this page of administrative divisions shows this Euphrates Region.
2. Below is a quote from an author frequently cited by pro-Kurdish users:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

1. Here is an official Traffic police sign in Tel Abyad under Kurdish militant (YPG) control, showing only the Kurdish name (Gire spi), both in English and Arabic (كري سبي) scripts, with no mention of the long established Arabic name (تل أبيض) in this predominantly Arab town. A ton of separate reports on human rights violations by YPG forces exist besides this story, but that's a discussion for another day.
2. Here is another story and another one, another one from other Kurdish "news agencies"/sites using the Kurdish name in Arabic scripts instead of the original Arabic name. I can provide tens of these.

On a similar note, in their Kurdification of northern Syria zeal, PYD/YPG came up with a new name (Sere Kaniye) to replace the 1000+ year old name of Ras al-Ayn (see here).

1. Here is another official department in Tel Abyad showing the Kurdish name in both Latin and Arabic scripts, instead of the original Arabic name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Konli17

Summary of dispute by Shadow4dark

Again as per talk, PYD/Kurds changed the name to Gire Spi. As per source they use name Gire Spi and not Tell AbyadShadow4dark (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) .

Tell Abyad discussion

Rape in Islamic law

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Rape in Islamic law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vice regent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically there is a dispute over which editor's version authentically follows the academic sources - mine or Vice regents'

1. VR's version emphasises the minority viewpoints that marital rape is considered a crime in Islam. Yet the sources say that "marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under dominant interpretations of the sharia." Hence, the section should emphasise and start with the dominant views per WP:DUE.

2. In VR's version the opening line says that "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape."

But that is not what the cited source said. It says (after describing what the definition of rape is in each classical Islamic school of jurisprudence) "From these judicial opinions, rape can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent"."

After that in a footnote, the author expresses his personal opinion (and not that of the classical jurists) that marital rape is classified as "domestic violence."

3. Another problem with VR's version is that it says "certain" Hanafi jurists allow marital rape, when no such qualification is used in the sources. The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife, without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists..

4. Another issue is over the text on what the non-Hanafi jurists say. My proposed version reads "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it." This is backed by the source here

VR says these jurists still criminalise forced sex in marriage under a different classification (i.e. domestic violence). But the source quite clearly states that the non-Hanafis do not penalise a husband for forced sex with his wife. If they held it to be domestic violence they would have still penalised it. The source says they did not.

5. VR quotes Hina Azam as saying that perineal tearing is criminalised in Islamic law yet excludes the same Hina Azam source when it says that coercion within marriage is still "fundamentally legal." Another aspect is that the academics differentiate between forced sex involving physical violence, which might be considered a legal infraction by the classical jurists, from other forced sex.

6. I think we should also include the views of Hanafi jurists such as al-Nasafi who do not hold a man liable for the death of his wife resulting from forced sex.

References

1. http://pydrojava.net/english/2020/02/24/pyd-the-democratic-system-in-ne-syria-is-the-solution-to-crisis/
2. Al-jaziri, abd Al-rahman; Roberts, Nancy (2009). Islamic Jurisprudence According To The Four Sunni Schools Al Fiqh 'ala Al Madhahib Al Arba'ah. Fons Vitae. ISBN 978-1887752978, quote "The followers of Imam Abu Hanifah said the right of the sexual pleasure belongs to the man, not the woman, by that it is meant that the man has the right to force the woman to gratify himself sexually."
3. Kecia Ali (30 October 2010). Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam. Harvard University Press. pp. 120–. ISBN 978-0-674-05059-4.

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

There were extensive discussions on the talkpage but they never got anywhere.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can check each user's version against the sources provided and see who is more faithfully following the sources. I have provided the quotes from the sources here For each sentence of my text I have displayed the quotes from the cited sources, here.

Summary of dispute by Vice regent

I'll keep it short. The basic gist is whether marital rape is allowed in Islam. Mcphurphy's assertions that Islam - a religion of 1.4 billion people, or 20% of humans - allows a man to rape and kill his wife (see his point #6 above) should raise red flags. In fact, I listed reliable source that say just this here: Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law#Sources_that_say_Islam_prohibits_marital_rape.

So what of the sources Mcphurphy lists? The user is doing two things: WP:CHERRYPICKING and confusing some nuances in the Islamic faith. I'll give two examples.

Mcphurphy wrote above, The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife, without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists. Yet the very author quoted (Kecia Ali), refers in her footnotes to her earlier work where she writes, Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine recognized a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses, although both were licit, sex by force might be unethical." Immediately after that, in a footnote she clarifies that this is comparable to marital rape not being in offense in England until 1991. It is thus a distortion to say that Hanafis allowed marital rape, when the author clearly says that the situation is more complicated.

Mcphurphy also wrote, Example text The author actually makes it clear in the very next sentence that when she talks about "rape", she is referring to ightisab - which is typically applied to rape and not to marital rape. That doesn't contradict scholars who do penalize it in other categories. Mcphurphy is not understanding the nuance in Islam and Islamic law when it comes to marital rape.

VR _talk 15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic law discussion

• Volunteer Note - The statement by Mcphurphy is too long. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but often they do not clarify the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Kenney

there have been only 2 comments discussing the issue on the talk page, both within the last 24 hours. Please make a strong effort to resolve this on the talk page before bringing it to the DRN. We are mediators only, we cannot make decisions nor enforce them. If you want more comments on the discussion- please try WP:RFC or WP:3o if, after more discussion, you still cannot find a solution, you are welcome to retry the DRN at that time. THank you Nightenbelle (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards