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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Donji Kraji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs)
• Mikola22 (talk · contribs)
• Mhare (talk · contribs)
• Ceha (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and I'm filing this dispute. I'm not super involved however, and admit I don't fully understand the issues. I had been asked to mediate, but it reached the end of my capacity, which is why I am sending this to more formal dispute resolution. Donji Kraji is a region in Bosnia. The issues are over what the historical names and borders of the region were, and what sources should be used. Part of the issue is in dealing with translated sources, the other is the reliability of those sources. I sense that there is some nationalism involved in the sources, which further complicates issues.

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

Talk:Donji_Kraji#Discussion,_round_2 Talk:Donji_Kraji#Let's_get_back_on_tracks_w/o_talking_in_circles Talk:Donji_Kraji#Let's_get_back_on_tracks_w/o_talking_in_circles Talk:Donji_Kraji#Please_respect_TP And many many more on the same talk page...

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing a structured forum that will allow editors to determine what the issues are, and how to resolve them. I also hope that formal mediation will keep folks on their best behavior.

Summary of dispute by Santasa99

Although, I was looking forward working with CaptainEek on the article, and I still do, I don't necessarily agree with them on their assessment of this issue as being "content dispute" at all. It should be apparent from enormity of that TP and things said there, rejection of reliable sources from variety of mainstream scholars of history with credible academic background, rejected on unacceptable grounds, that this is conduct or some hybrid of both - SEE discussion bellow. Revert of edits done on consensus while explicitly agreed TP "round-2" discussion was underway. TP "round-2" between Flyer and myself three editors was fruitful, so certain level of consensus was achieved, agreed included into the article. Mhare too accepted sources, arguments and agreed lines. Meanwhile, editor Ceha rejected sources on unreasonable grounds, continuously repeating request for unsupported content (words, names, some phrases) be included and some supported excluded. Then editor Ceha simply dismissed agreed changes, reverted to old version, and continued to edit article with inclusion of new, never discussed changes in TP and unsupported by sources, with addition of some poor choice of wording ("powerful", "briefly", "temporary"), style and English. All this times editor Ceha regularly appeared in TP, like nothing is happening at article space, maintaining TP in endless loop of same requests and rejections asking to restart discussion again and again.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mikola22

Some of the editors begin introduce the term Bosnia and that is legitimately but not in good faith becouse some historians(Serbian, Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic) and her book is colored with politics, and that’s why I consider that sources which exist are appropriate to support this article.Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I would only ask that -౪ Santa ౪ present historical data which speak about Donji Kraji Bosanski(Bosnian) i.e. concrete historical documents so let's all learn something. I have asked this before but these documents are not exposed, I only know about Donji Kraji. Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's: Rodonačelnik vlasteoske bosanske porodice Hrvatinića, knez Hrvatin Stjepanić, nosio je 1299. godine titulu "kneza Donjih Kraja bosanske zemlje" (comes partium provinciarum inferiorum terre Bosnensis; comes de inferioribus confiniis Bosne). Stoga, porijeklo ovog termina ne može da se veže za Ugarsku i "Donje karjeve Slavonije", kako je mislio Vego, več je u pitanju domaći naziv za dio bosanske države. Epitet Donji oslikava nadmorsku visinu ove oblasti, dok ime Kraji svakako označava pogranične oblasti (Lat. confinii) bosanske države. - Mrgić, 2002, pp.28 (I have provided this same passage for you before, that's why is your above claim so strange to me.) But, since you don't like Mrgić, let's see what source she uses. Franjo Rački, "Rukopisi tičući se južno-slovinske povjesti u arkhivi srednje i dolnje Italije" pp.222 (1872) / also, Thalloczy, "Istarživanje o postanku" pp 434 / also, Brković, "Tri povelje knezova Bribirskih izdane bosanskom knezu Hrvatinu" pp 139-153 (1990)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

These are charters where are mentioned "Donji Kraji Bosanski"(three charters are from Pavao I, ban of Croats and lord of Bosnia^[1]) but whether historian Franjo Rački or Brković have concluded same historical facts as Mrgić? That's why I listed some charters that do not mentione "Donji Kraji Bosanski" Otherwise I quoted and review of Mrgić's book "the epithet Donji" (in the name Donji Kraji)for Mrgić indicates altitude of this area, anyone who looks at the geographical map of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be convinced that this area is extremely mountainous (whether it is necessary to spend words at all on introduce the concept of "altitude mindset in the Middle Ages) page 97etc.etc..". If only some charters are used for reaching some conclusion then question is what are the intentions of this historian. If there is a negative review about Mrgić's book then we must first reach consensus on reliability of such a source or some other sources.Mikola22 (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mhare

I joined discussion after Ceha started mixing terms in talk page, confusing some Bosnian regions with others. When I pointed that out in the talk page, he started changing arguments and spilled some pretty problematic views on well established and authoritative sources. That includes Marko Vego and John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., all while claiming that Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is legitimate. I want to concentrate on that, as it is the most problematic trend I have noticed. Other problems were that Mikola and Ceha completely disregarded the sourced claims, and just reverted to a this version with less references, and with references that included Original research papers and Term papers of some students. Accusing well established authors to be not pro-Croatian, communist and biased in the case of Fine Jr. who is one of the most quoted authors on Balkans history is really problematic, and raises some red flags. Santasa version included proper references, and it did not say anything controversial at all. Both Ceha and Mikola have started canvasing other articles about medieval Bosnia and began changing the wording and tagging Fine as unreliable source. If we just scroll through some of medieval Bosnian articles we will see he is one of the most quoted authors. This is problematic trend I am seeing, and is endangering some of the core Wikipedia principles. Mhare (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ceha

It's historical article (about border area), and history should be based upon sources, and not about 20th, or 21st century politics. Or quoting nationalistic politicians who wish to rewrite history.
If an area name is Donji Kraji, there is no need to invent label Bosanski, if it is not sourced in documents of that time. Everything should have a source.
Nor there is need to repeat word Bosnian in every second word. A little bit of profesionalism should be desirable.
Also in talk pages user Santasa is discussing me (in very negative tones), and not article, I think it should stop, it's very unwikipedian and rude. User Mhare has started making same critics, just because I don't share their political/national POV...
--Čeha (razgovor) 20:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately the similar pattern is repeating itself on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_(early_medieval_polity) (and similar problem was also present on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Croatia )--Čeha (razgovor) 21:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji discussion

• Volunteer Question - User:CaptainEek - Are you (1) another party to the dispute; (2) neutral and uninvolved, and requesting that a moderator be assigned; (3) neutral and uninvolved and offering to mediate? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - @Robert McClenon: editor Captain was neutral and uninvolved when they offered us a hand and initiated round-2 of TP discussion. Captain than also attempted to mediate when round-2 discussion became endless loop of same requests and repetition, after which Captain opened this DNR. I don't want to make claims in Captain name, but it seems like #2 is likely option regarding part on request for mediation, and I also believe that all possible additional help would be excellent idea.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am nuetral and asking a moderator be assigned. I was previously a moderator that took it on after a tangential issue brought it to ANI, but I did not have the time to do it justice. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We could realy use a moderator, I fully suport that idea. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji First statement by moderator

I am willing to try to mediate this dispute. I will remind all of you to be civil and concise, and to comment on content only, not on contributors. Civility is required in Wikipedia in general and is essential to resolving disputes. Any inappropriate comments about other editors may be collapsed. Overly long statements may make the person making the statement feel better, but they seldom help to resolve the issues. See WP:DRN Rule A and follow it. It repeats and expands on these instructions, and you are required to follow it.

Each editor should state, in one paragraph, either what they want changed in the article, or what they want left alone in the article that another editor wants changed, and they should explain concisely why it should or should not be changed. Once we state the issues clearly, we can determine whether compromise is possible, or whether a Request for Comments will be used.

User:Santasa99, User:Ceha, User:Mikola22, User:Mhare, please provide your summaries. User:SportingFlyer, do you want to participate? User:CaptainEek, do you want to participate? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji First statements by editors

• I do not wish to participate as I have no stake or opinion, but thanks Robert. I wish y'all good luck! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: I am happy to participate, and I don't really have a stake in the outcome. I wasn't pinged back into that discussion and it hasn't been on my watchlist for some reason so I have fallen off. My biggest problem is I don't quite understand exactly where the conflict is. I understand there is a conflict, I understand the conflict is how the sources are represented and translated, I understand there's a bit of nationalism on both sides of the argument, but I don't quite understand the motivations behind the conflict here. For instance, this really isn't all that different - the current version is wrong, as the sources don't seem to mention "Donja Panonija" (though I can't quite confirm this, the preview only goes down so far.) I'm happy to look at the sources provided and give an opinion on what exactly they're saying - I've already missed a translation once, but we should be looking for the truth/NPOV here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have really nothing more to add, my statement is basically same as my summary above. Santasa version is properly sourced with Secondary sources, and the revision that Čeha and Mikola are pushing has Original research. Talking pages are discouraging as they are constantly questioning established sources for medieval Bosnia, and I chose not to enter that discussion wherever Fine is reliable source as almost every article on medieval Balkans has references by one his books. And he is peer-reviewed author. I have read a whole lot about sources in these past few days, about various policies about source age, verifiability, proper second hand interpretation of primary sources by scholarship, and etc. Considering that, Santasa revision has in my view better references, and doesn't delve into speculation or interpreting Primary sources. --Mhare (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Since the page is now protected for the at least next couple of weeks, which happened after I included my edits, I will let contesting party to state their grievances and speak for themselves, SportingFlyer including. However, my edits there are one hell of a mess, and they may include some literal translations without rephrasing - I want that, if exists, such occurrence be seen under the context of specific circumstances and enormous pressure (persistent reverts, and hard frigging discussion at TP), and not as some kind of deliberate agenda, or whatever. SportingFlyer may claim neutrality, but they are far from it, however as long as they are on point and accept good arguments I am OK with whatever their bias may be. One, thing though - it is irresponsible statement, on their part, to assert and assign "nationalism" to both sides without at least some concrete evidence.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Second statement by moderator

Perhaps I need to clarify the instruction, "Comment on content, not contributors". Don't tell me who you disagree with. Maybe I need to make that very clear in the instructions. Only tell what you disagree about. Don't say who is doing original research. Tell me exactly what paragraphs (and, if necessary, sentences) you want changed in the article, or what you want kept the same. The objective is to identify the parts of the article that may need improvement. Try again on the summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The back-and-forth may continue, and I will probably ignore it, unless it becomes uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Second statements by editors

• Whole article is marred by problems and prose without references, but unless we hear grievances surrounding last edit before page was protected we are never gonna deal with the rest. Also,@moderator, unless you explicitly stipulate your position on the direction of this discussion regarding its trajectory toward questioning sources with baseless reasoning, this DRN is going to turn into endless loop of misunderstanding and misinterpreting guidelines on reliable sources, as a base for the rejection of both scholarship and prose based on that scholarship. Unfortunately it's an obscure subject and there are no enough interested editors who could bring balance (to the force). It's a big question if even RfC would be efficient mean in bringing fresh perspective.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The main thing is to set frame to the discussion. I gave the historical context in which Donji Kraji are mentioned. I think that should be obvious in article, and unfortunately it is not.

Nationalistic stances in which medieval feudal states are seen as national, and every second word is the same (Bosnian for example), should not have place in wikipedia.... --Čeha (razgovor) 00:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see some self-criticism for a change, but in the same time it's strange how editor is nevertheless still expressing consternation by the usage of proper noun "Bosnia" in the article on medieval Bosnian history, while insisting on inclusion of proper noun "Croatia" - I guess they don't believe we should drop using proper noun "Croatia" in articles on medieval Croatian history and start using "Hungary" instead?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, can you provide diffs Čeha or others has been purposefully pushing Croatia instead of Bosnia? For instance in this diff, the original diff only references Croatia three times, once geographically, once referring to Šubić, and another time describing an area which was conquered (there is a fourth time the word Croatia appears, in a reference, if you do a find telling you which language the source is in.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Third statement by moderator

I am not hearing anything specific, except that the "whole article is marred". If the issue is the whole article, one possibility is for each editor to write their own version of the article, and then either have a collaborative merge effort, or an RFC to choose between articles. Is each editor ready to write their own version of the article in their user space? Also, one editor says that I (the moderator) should "explicitly stipulate [a] position on the direction of this discussion regarding its trajectory toward questioning sources with baseless reasoning". I think that statement is asking that I restate Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. If there are specific issues about sources, please state them as specific issues. So please reply as to: (1) are each of you ready to write your own version of the article; (2) are there any specific questions about sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Reply to moderator by another editor

@Robert McClenon: it's me who said that you need to stipulate your position on the direction this DRN takes, and on, what I believe, is inappropriate trajectory toward constant rejection of credible mainstream sources, based on denigration of scholars who are sources' authors. As I reiterated many times before, this is not the place to question such high profiled scholars and their scholarship, especially without any evidence or without some evident sensible reasoning. Reasons such as claims that author's scholarship is unacceptable because his views were not "pro-Croatian" enough, and that author's scholarship is unacceptable because he was biased against Croats regardless the fact that author was Croat himself, and that author's scholarship is unacceptable because he was "Communist" and "member of Communist party"; when repeated and their outright rejection reiterated time after time, for weeks and now even months(!), in most blunt and brazen language, such attitude is enough to warm up even the coolest of heads. Now, that you have spoken on this issue, I am glad that we can move onto concrete prose issues, and leave the sources and scholars alone, unless someone want to contest them in reliable sources AN.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Third statements by editors

• Since the editor Čeha knows every part of this article he can write the article on my behalf (I'm here to help him) however roughly this should be an article before editing by Santasa99.
• My personal concerns are the sources. We have a book of Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic "Donji Kraji, Krajina srednjovekovne Bosne" negatively evaluated by Mladen Ančić ^[1][2] We have and John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. book "When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans" negatively evaluated by Neven Budak ^{[3] [4]} Does not mean that these books are bad but we have reviews and negative rating so we do not know if the same books fall under RC. So my suggestion is to discuss about these sources, or some other if will be necessary.Mikola22 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• I fully agree with Mikola22.
• Here should be a place to write a better version? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ceha/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload --Čeha (razgovor) 22:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not sure how much time I have to write a new version of the article, but I can definitely try as it could be seriously improved. I don't see huge issues with the reliability of sources as others claim to - I don't personally see a lot of conflict between what they're saying, and where two sources conflict, we can note both of those per WP:DUE as long as one of the sources isn't proven garbage. Just a fair warning Robert McClenon, you may be needed to make unpopular judgment calls on the reliability of different sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Fourth statement by moderator

I will comment briefly and wait for more constructive comments by editors, but noting that constructive comments are in short supply. I thank User:Ceha for providing a sandbox version of the article, and will invite comments by other editors. I can move it into my sandbox for rework, but I won't do that until I know that that will be useful and that it won't start another round of sniping.

It appears that User:Ceha and User:Mikola22 are in agreement. I am not sure what the agreement or disagreement is about. It appears that they don't agree with User:Santasa99. However, commenting on contributors is what has gotten us here.

User:SportingFlyer has said that I may have to make some unpopular judgment calls about sources. I don't plan to make unilateral calls about sources. Sources can be discussed at the reliable source noticeboard. First we need to identify the challenged sources. I will comment that twentieth-century and twenty-first century sources are often more appropriate than contemporary historical sources, both because modern historians may have some perspective, and because additional information may be available, such as archeology, and techniques for validating evidence. However, first we need to identify the challenged sources rather than just complaining about sources. Please identify any sourcing issues in the fourth statements. Please list any specific issues either with the existing article or with any sandbox version of the article in the fourth statements.

By the way, if this round of requesting constructive comments is no more useful than the last three, I will fail the discussion and report it to WP:ANI with a suggestion that the community decide who to topic-ban. So let's try to break out of just complaining, or someone is likely to be topic-banned.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Fourth statements by editors

• No one is against Santasa99 but I am against changing an article without consensus and puting term "Bosnia" in whole article without references. As far as sources is concerned, if some book sees Croats like this, I quote review of the book(John Van Antwerp Fine Jr.When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans): "Its obvious intention to diminish in every way the meaning of Croatian self-identification is supported by the claim that many of the allegations referring to Croats are actually geographical and political determinants". How to make some conclusions about history of Bosnia, Croatia and Donjih Kraja based on this book(as a whole). I don't know how much that book contributes to accuracy of the article. In my opinion the whole book is not RC at least as far as history of Bosnia and Croatia is concerned. As for Mrgić's book some parts of the book are controversial and we should discuss together whether same book is RC for history of Bosnia, Croatia and Donjih Kraja. Mikola22 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I made so small changes in the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ceha/sandbox#History , I think this should be fine?

I also opened discussion about the sources, if another of the sources is dubtfull we should discuss it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Grace%27s_Guide_to_British_Industrial_History

As for Santasa... I do not have anything against him, but I would like that he would more discuss the article, and less other editors, cause that should be important. The guy made a lot of edits withouh appropriate consensuses, and I hope he could be more open to discussion in the future. User Mhare made some good edits in few articles.

I doesn't matter that we do not share the same ideas, it's important that all of us want to improve the articles.

And we really lost to much time bickering about things that are not important. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Article of editor Ceha is very good and I have no complaints. I support his well-meaning proposal to talk more about problems in article and less about him or anyone else because we wasting time. Now we need a few days to analyze and discuss the sources.Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• The fact that this tandem is on yet another noticeboard below us speaks volumes. So, now they will report any source that they don't like, and instead push Primary sources and WP:ORIGINAL to articles, when we have reliable secondary sources that are modern peer-reviewed literature. What they offer is not up to par with English Wikipedia standards. There is very little difference between versions, but this constant reverting and deleting legitimate references is problematic, and is my main gripe with all this. Mhare (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked the diference between the current state of Donji Kraji and the sandbox version? I had basicly to rewrite half of the article, a lot of data was mixed up, a lot of it didn't had anything to do with the area, etc.

I became editing the article in good faith, I've just tried to repair the errors. When I looked at the whole artice...

Wikipedia has it's rutines and procedures. Let's stick to them.

I'm realy sorry that you find Fine's source reliable, even as it speaks for renaming one nation and it's state (altough a medieval one).--Čeha (razgovor) 00:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• I added another map in the sandbox version. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Donji_Kraji.png --Čeha (razgovor) 08:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And where are we now, what happened? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Fifth statement by moderator

Here is my summary of what has happened so far. First, perhaps I never should have started this discussion, because there is also a content dispute about a source at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Sourcing disputes should be carried on there, and should be resolved before any content dispute comes here. Second, some of the editors here don't seem to be able to understand what I mean when I say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion outside the section for back-and-forth discussion. This is not an article talk page, and the free-for-all of article talk pages do not apply here, although this is a talk page. Third, some of the editors here are still stating general complaints that do not help. For these reasons, I will be closing this discussion as failed after getting one last round of statements.

However, fourth, User:Ceha provided an alternate version of the article. That was constructive. I have renamed it to User:Ceha/Donji Kraji, and I will be posting a Request for Comments on whether it should replace the existing article in its entirety. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Fifth statements by editors

Donji Kraji Ceha

Ok, I agree. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC) As for Santasa suggestions, I disagree with every of them.
From wrong quotes, disputable teorries (lower Slavonia) to ideas of removing history (Pliva parish). Current version is very bad, is writen up and down without head. I think that in my version things are much clearer.
--Čeha (razgovor) 00:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Editor Ceha has done a very good job and tries to keep article objective and true, he put his time and effort into it. I support his version of the article but someone else will decide whether this article is good or not and their word we must accept and to respect. I hope for a positive decision. Mikola22 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Santa

I am tired from my real-life job and working parallelly on something here, so I am going to comment on "lead" and couple of sections of sandbox article. I would like @Mhare:, if he's willing and if has a strength, to check those larger sections claims and subtle information context, and, of course, sources. I will too, try to survey sources regardless to which sections they belong. I would like to suggest editor User:Surtsicna to be asked to give his assessment of the sandbox version and our latest suggestions, since this could be good opportunity to extend the article and to do it in quality manner - Surticna is very experienced editor who is well acquainted with Balkan and indeed Bosnian medieval history, for which he has numerous Good Article promotions in that topic to testify for that (I didn't pinged him, obviously, I am leaving that to moderator if the RfC standard process is in line with such suggestion, so that he, moderator, has him as an excellent option for assessment). Now, on sections:

• Lead is good - needs tweak with puffery: "famous" and "powerful" are against MOS:WORDS,
• Name and Geography is not entirely good:

Version which is protected is well referenced, with correct reading and interpretation of sources, but little bit unnecessarily insufficient! Also, there is no "Upper Bosnia" in sources in any context, whatsoever, there is discussion of altitude with topological implications (in this sense "gornja" refer to "highland" Bosnia, in contrast to "donja/donji" Bosnia or Kraji).

Following is proposed section prose:

At first, Donji Kraji referred to a region around Ključ on the Sana.[1][4] Marko Vego derives the name of Donji Kraji from the name of Roman province Lower Pannonia, or later Lower Slavonia,[1][3][5] while Pavao Anđelić deduce that the name Donji Kraji (Lower Ends) "also has a certain relation to the rest of (highland) Bosnia", where the terms "Lower" and "End" refers to a border area that is below from the geographical point of view, and in terms of altitude and terrain configuration, in relation to the rest of Bosnia.[2][5] Jelena Mrgić reject existence of "Donji Kraji Slavonije" altogether, and reject previous etymological discussions among historians, such as Klajić, Jiriček and even Vego, and derives the county name, similarly to Pavao Anđelić, from geography (altitude and topography) and political demarcation as a product of solely local Bosnian origin.[5] From the 13th century, texts referring to it as "Donji kraji Bosne" or "Donji kraji Bosanski.[5] During the reign of Hrvatinić family, since the beginning of 13th century, the territory of Donji Kraji included areas and parishes around Sana river, Glaž, to Grmeč mountain on the west and to the middle course of the Vrbas river on the east, thus covering entire region of Sanica, and later included Uskoplje, Pliva, Luka, Vrbas, Zemljanik (Resnik), Vrbanja, Tribava (Trijebovo), Mel, Lušci and Banjica, and on occasions Dubica and sometimes even Usora.[1] Vjekoslav Klaić, by invoking primary sources and document from 1244, as well as Mrgić, placed the territory of Donji Kraji in northern Bosnia, west from Usora county.[6] This is confirmed by Konstantin Josef Jireček who said: "The Lower Ends (das Unterland) lies in the northwestern (Bosnia) toward Croatia, encompassing Kotor on the Vrbanja, Jajce and Ključ on the Sana (Kotor ander Vrbanja, Jajce, Ključ an der Sana u. S. W.)". From the Bosnian Cyrillic scripts of the written monuments, we know that Lušci village was in the Lower Ends but this place is not known today.[7]

References:

[1] Marko Vego (1982), "Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske države", Svjetlost, pp. 38–42.;

[2] Pavao Anđelić (1982), "Studije o teritorijalnopolitičkoj organizaciji srednjovjekovne Bosne", Svjetlost, OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost. p. 10-11.;

[3] Muhamed Hadžijahić (2004), "Povijest Bosne u IX i X stoljeću", Preporod. p. 133;

[4] Dragomir Vukičić; Nevenka Gošić (1985), "Collection of papers and materials of the fifth Yugoslav onomastic conference", Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, p. 75.

[5] Mrgić, 2002, "Donji Kraji", Filozofski fakultet Beograd / Istorijski institut Banja Luka, pp.27 and pp.28

[6] Mrgić, 2000, "North Bosnia fro 13th-16th century", pp 289

[7] Vjekoslav Klajić, "Topografske sitnice (I)", March 1880, Journal of the Zagreb Archaeological Museum (in Croatian). Archaeological Museum, Zagreb. 2 (1): pp. 68–69

• Early history - is completely misplaced in temporal sense, since this is an article on medieval county, and not simply on some ambiguous geographical areal, so its early history begins with its first mentioning as a county - a polity, which, we now know from all this considerable literature, emerged in relation to medieval Bosnian state. Protected version is only acceptable, unless someone much better acquainted with history and sources says something new to me!

That's it from me at this point, I will follow if Mhare gives his assessment of the rest, and if moderator decide to ping User:Surtsicna.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Correction to the text (see history).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji Back-and-forth discussion 2

• One of the editors began to introduce the term "Bosnian" i.e. Donji Kraji Bosanski(Bosnian). I would ask sources in the form of various books as well as original sources which mention term Donji Kraji Bosanski(Bosnian), to see what this is really about.
• Before discussions on concrete data we need bring consensus on reliable sources i.e. book of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. and Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic(possibly some other sources) which are from Croatian historians identified as not reliable. My suggestion would be that claims of these historians in the first place book of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. we start introduce in the article about Croats and Croatia to see if this historians there could participate as reliable sources. After that we'll get an answer and a consensus of multiple editors whether these sources are reliable or not.
• Once we established this, then we can start discussing about specific data in the article.Mikola22 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Core problem

I agree with Mikola22. The main problem is that few users are using a few secondary sources which don't have back up in primary ones, and are critisised as non reliable, or nationalistic. Subsequent problem is refusal to discuss thesis from their sources. For example this edit. User:Santasa99 is quoting historian Bulić in his thesis that medieval Martar might be Mostar, even as the area around Mostar belong to another dukedom (Zahumlje), where the place of it's captal Blagaj, and the name of Mostar isn't recorded by the end of 15th century (about 5 centuries of diference).
Concrete discussion in the article talk is in two points:

• Is the label "Bosnian" part of province name (I've didn't see any valid sources which would claim that)
• And the wording in the sentence which describes geoposition of Donji Kraji area.

--Čeha (razgovor) 10:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Statements by SportingFlyer

I want my statement to be separate as to not get into a back and forth discussion. This revision includes the text From the 13th century on, the region was more often called Donji kraji Slavonije than Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji Bosanski. and cites Kao što je poznato, prvobitno su Donji kraji bili područje oko Ključa na Sani. Od 13. vijeka ne nazivaju se više Donji kraji Slavonije nego Donji kraji Bosne ili Donji kraji bosanski., citing Dragomir Vukičić; Nevenka Gošić (1985). Collection of papers and materials of the fifth Yugoslav onomastic conference. Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. p. 75. My translation: From what is known, the area of Donji kraji was originally around Ključ on the Sana river. From the 13th century, it was no longer called Donji kraji Slavonije but rather Donji kraji Bosne or Donji kraji bosanski. The text in the article is practically a translated copyvio. I think it cites back to Vego, you'll have to take a look. However, that text can be found almost verbatim from an even earlier reference, from 1976, here, which makes clear when the region began to be called Bosnian, which, from what I have seen, coincides nicely with the timeline that other rulers, possibly Croatian, ruled the area before then, though I haven't seen the sources on that yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Ceha Do you have sources which support what you've posted below? SportingFlyer T·C 14:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=15954

http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=26387

http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=48759

http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=9489

Tertiary source, but none the less

Map from ex-yugoslav atlas; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/e/ef/Hrvatska_Pavla_%C5%A0ubi%C4%87a.jpg

If something is disputable, I think that better sources can be found, but I do not thing that anything should be.

It's semiautonomus border area, of which nobility (Hrvatinići family) had great influence on the Croatian and Bosnian politics in 14th and 15th century.

HVH was de facto bosnian king, and last turkish vasal king Matija Vojslavić-Hrvatinić, was his grandson... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fall_of_Bosnia.png --Čeha (razgovor) 23:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Ceha: I think we can find better sources than the Croatian encyclopaedia for an area in modern day Bosnia, but that source still seems accurate with the other sources I've been reading/finding. SportingFlyer T·C 00:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Croat encyclopedia is owned by http://www.lzmk.hr/, which is sucesor of http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=35937 Leksikografski zavod FNRJ/Jugoslavenskog leksikografskog zavoda. So they show mainstream views of history of the area. But I am certain that better sources can be found without problem.

The main point is that, they are accourate. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not finding much on "Donji kraji Bosanske" apart from the one source either. I've been doing some interesting research on the matter - for instance this book clearly states that Donji Kraji was not part of Bosnia until the 13th or 14th centuries (page lxx), and is clearly a Bosnian text. This book suggests Donji Kraji was basically autonomous at some point around 1324, but I can't read enough of the preview to get a full context, though it looks like Šubić only ruled through 1318. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've found a bit more from The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century by John A. Fine, published by the University of Michigan which seems to support the timeline presented below: Then, after 1322 and before 1325, the leading family of the Donji Kraji, the Hrvatinić-Stjepanić clan, submitted to Kotromanić. The family had previously been vassal to the Šubići. Its submission to Kotromanić reflects also the decline of the Šubići. For the rest of the fourteenth century, except for the early years of Tvrtko I immediately after Kotromanićs death in 1353, the Donji Kraji was to be nominally a part of Bosnia, though in fact it was a more-or-less autonomous principality under the Hrvatinić family. Two charters from ca. 1324 exist showing the above and confirming the rights of certain local nobles to the lands they had aleady possessed, but asserting the ban's suzerainty over them, in Usora, Soli, and the Donji Kraji.

• Mhare Which statements do you think are WP:OR? SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, Evliya Çelebi mentione Ključ and says that he is located in Donji Kraji and on the Sana river. and also At the time of the largest power he establish the town of Jajce.. I am not challenging truthfulness of these statements, but we do know policies about Original research. I find these bickering about established sources troubling, they have labeled all of them as biased and nationalistic, even Fine. Mhare (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mhare: in terms of the first reference, that exact statement is referenced on the Ključ, Una-Sana Canton page, and I could easily find the Putopis which references Ključ here. The source may be primary, but how is this WP:OR? I haven't looked closely at the Jajce reference, as I'm having difficulty finding a source that discusses when exactly it was founded (there's a number of sources, but I can't quite access them in full.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, that citation was referenced by some work papers of some students. They should use the source you found. The original research was a citation about Jajce, which is this document. Keeping in mind all Wikipedia policies about sources, I am really having trouble seeing what is wrong with Santasa99 version, for which he really went out of his way to include proper sources. We have an example of comedic Čeha on Banate of Bosnia article, where he, for example, changes Bosnia to Banate, Bosnian to his lands and etc. Mhare (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mhare: I actually don't see a problem with that apart from the fact both versions aren't well referenced. Now I've been introduced to the topic, I'm rather interested in it and have gone out of my way to read about it. I found a Jelena Mrgić paper in English which isn't really about Donji Kraji, but while she discusses the fluidity of the region she emphasises the differences between countries more than other authors. There's no question the region was Bosnian at one point in time, but I think Čeha's version does a better job of demonstrating the fact the region changed hands a number of times. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, We should definitely improve the article. Should it be possible with constant "changing of the wording" without sources? I am not so sure. Most of the articles they touch end up in Edit warring noticeboards, and that discourages meaningful work on articles. I have tried to include more references into Kingdom of Bosnia article, but I had to do at least 5 edits bringing back referenced information and fixing Ceha's spelling mistakes, "wording", and sometimes plain simple wrong information. Mhare (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  @Mhare: Please assume good faith while we're here at dispute resolution, as our end goal is to produce a rewrite everyone is happy with to prevent future edit warring. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

  SportingFlyer, I will try for sure. Mhare (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Santasa99 Which part of the timeline presented by Čeha do you believe is not true? It matches with what I've been finding. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Santasa99 To be honest, I'm not sure how to agree with you at the moment as I can't quite tell where you disagree - you've focused solely on the reliability of different sources, whereas I'm trying to figure out what your position is on the facts, considering there's not that much difference between a lot of these sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment to statements by SportingFlyer

Problem with this is that there is no primary source which would support Vego's claims, nor that an are was ever called anything else than Donji Kraji. More over, about thirty-forty years after that whole area came under rule of Croatian ban, Pavao Šubić (which dinsty ruled it for the next cca forty years).
So the statment would be missleading (not just incorect), as area changed hands a few times after that. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Document of duke Juraj Vojsalić from 1434. ">Mi voevoda Jurai, milost'ju Božiom' voevoda Doinih' krai" translation "I duke Juraj by the grace of God duke of Donji Kraji" Same document and title of Duke Juraj testify about weak power of the Bosnian and Hum Kings in Donji Kraji and especially in Hum and the Littoral.^[5] I also quoted(talk page) one charter from 1395 in which are Bosnia and Donji Kraji mentioned separately. For that reason we need to see if some source uses only certain charters and make conclusion because here exist and some other charters which as far as we can see do not mention "Donje Kraje Bosanske" although there is mention in the article that they have been called from the 13th century.Mikola22 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Statements by Santa

Since my comments are already gone, even those under "back-and-forth" (maybe they were too derisive, maybe something else, whatever), I will try to reiterate my position on this DRN possible trajectory emerging in some of key or "core" claims/requests (mostly concerning sources), now without redundant derisiveness:

• sources - proper avenues in contesting sources exist at AN. I have no intention discussing mainstream credible scholarship on TP or here, and any rejection of such scholarship, without hard evidence, or some really evident reason is baseless (e.g. previously expressed reasons such as author not being "pro-Croatian" and being "biased", and being "Communist" aren't sensible reasons) - opinion on mainstream credible scholars, who devoted their lives and careers investigating past through "primaries" (e.g. documents, charter of ruler XY, etc.), "original researches" also sometime considered as "primaries" (e.g. Einhard, Porphyrogenitus, XZ, "my late professor found", etc.), and "secondaries" (e.g. "another historian concluded before me and I am citing him here because I agree"), is irrelevant - proper avenue for contesting them is AN.
• WP:Reliable sources - meaning and application of guidelines on Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary is misunderstood and/or misinterpreted, and since these guidelines are basic, and without them there is no constructive contribution nor discussion, and if my derisive comments were unacceptable, then someone should find better way explaining these essentials, otherwise this will end in failure. I am tired and disgruntled with everything that happened during the last couple of weeks, and it now continues to happen here, with misunderstanding or refusal of basic policies and guidelines on sources. Is there any point in saying how claim that we need "primary" to support research and interpretation by credible researcher of history has no validity.
• DRN vs. AN - attempt to turn this DRN, filed over three sentences and some more, into discussion over source at the very beginning is not promising at all, especially after involved editor expressed some pretty unacceptable reason in previous discussions, quite the contrary, and it's not what I expected this DRN to be, and I have no intention discussing, with just a handful of editors contributing to very narrow and specific subject, scholars whose works are essential in referencing of myriad of articles and entire topic of medieval East-Southeast Europe, including Byzantine, Serbian, Montenegrin, Albanian, Greek, Croatian, Bosnian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Ottoman history.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer - you have found this publication, which falls under the category of "dictionary" or "reference works" (tertiary source), by Croatian political emigree and ardent nationalist Ante Čuvalo, with weak apparatus criticus, without single footnote, with only some bibliogrphy - is there any academic researches from more established researchers, or are you suggesting that we drop Vego, Anđelić, Mrgić, Hadžijahić in favor of this publication by Čuvalo ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Now we have some genuine suggestion that we encroach on grounds of WP: Original research here. @Mikola, for example, suggest that we should crosschecked historians, he deem suspicious, for their credibility and faculties in conducting their research, we should checked if they somehow miscarried their duty to be impartial researchers of primary sources and original documents. Mikola also suggest how in charters, which he found, "Donji Kraji" and "Bosna" are separate, supposedly these are completely different and independent polities - well they are not, not independent nor exactly separate as Mikola suggests - they are just listed separately as that was a formal intitulation of Bosnian rulers, like all rulers used in medieval Europe (of course, it sometimes differ from scribe to scribe). All original medieval documents issued in medieval Bosnia by its elite and rulers refer to their realm by citing county by county: "King's county" is called "Bosna", and from there they list one by one all other counties: Usora, Soli, Podrinje, Hum, Donji Kraji, Završje, Zapadne Strane - depending on period and the scribes, these are all in title, sometime some could be left out, and so on. On this subject, best and most informative source is "Studije o političko teritorijalnoj organizaciji srednjevjekovne Bosne" / "Studies on political and territorial organization of medieval Bosnia" - Pavao Anđelić, (1982).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Title - "With the will of the Good, Lord of all Bosnian lands, Soli, Usora, Donji Kraji, and the Hum land" - in Mrgić i Živković (2008) "Sjeverna Bosna 13.-16. vj."; also Vego, but can be found in many other works too. "Land", as Anđelić explains is "zemlja", as in "King's land(s)", or county, has nothing to do with a separate country.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Santa's Statements

Firstly Santa, it's not ok that you just quote unreliable source and that you decline any discussion about that. But I hope that moderators will help us fix that.
Secondly, yes. Banate of Bosnia is not an unitaristic state. It's a feudal one. It's mostly conected solely by a ruler of all the provinces.
This map which shows just an expansion of Bosnian state is not compleatly true. This would be a more correct one.
During any change of ruler, some provinces changed hands, and the power of ban was different in any province.
History of Donj Kraji is:

• early Croatian state (Pliva Parish in DAI) till the midle of 13th century
• overlordship of Bosnian Ban (Kotromanić family), till the late 13th century
• overlordship of Crotian Ban (Šubić family), till the Battle of Bliska (1322).
• overlordship of Bosnian Bans (various persons from Kotromanić family), till the sellfroclamation of Tvrtko I. as king. (1377)
• overlordship of Bosnian Bans and selfproclaimed kings (various persons from Kotromanić family) untill the fall of Bosnia (1463)
• Jajce Banate (with Croatia Ban as most most often Ban of the Banate) until the fall 1528.
• Ottoman rule, untill the 1878. (parts of Kliški, Bihaćki and Bosanski Sandžak in Bosanski Pašaluk)
• Austro-hungarian rule, until the 1918. (province of BiH)
• kingdom of Yugoslavia, unil the 1941. (parts of Vrbas Banovina after 1929.)
• NDH, until the 1945.
• SFRJ, until the 1991. (and in it part of SR BiH)

Last 6, are modern and new age periods, and should not be part of medieval article.
During the cca 2 centuries of conection of Donji Kraji with Bosnian Bans, most of the power there were in hands of local nobles (Hrvatinići family), which in time gathered enough power to (in late 14th and begining of 15th century) to became real power in Bosnian Banate/Kingdom and most of Croatia, by time of Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić which proclaimed himself as great duke of Bosnia, and viceking/regent for Dalmatia and Croatia....
Only after his death, by marring his widow (Jelena Nelipić, sister of a Croatian Ban) in 1421., did the house of Kotromanić (the rulling house of Bosnian Banate) came in posesions of towns in Donji Kraji. Medieval times are more like Game of thrones series, than todays national states. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Poor Bosnia, and all those poor people who studied its history for the last 200 years, if only they knew that there is no such a place as Bosnia, only glorious Croatia and Croatians.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Donji Kraji don't have any connection with Bosnia till the 1244. Or you think that Pliva parish from DAI were somewhere else, and not in medieval Croatia? Or do you have any source to claim otherways?

It's interesting how you go to satire when you are left with no arguments.

Medieval states are (mostly) not national, and medieval borders were different than today's. England ruled half of today's France, and no one has a problem with that. Past tense, nothing more. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, poor Bosnia and poor me, and all those poor people who studied its history for the last 200 years, if only they knew that there is no such a place as Bosnia, only glorious Croatia and Croatians - they would be better if they had "Games of Thrones" to watch than spend their entire lives and careers in learning, researching, studying, writing books.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you trained to interpret texts such as "De Administrando Imperio" ?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

:rofl: http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=48759 Could you give me just one (credible) source which places Pliva parish somwehere else than in the basin of the Pliva and probably the upper reaches of the Vrbas, where town of Pliva (todays Šipovo) existed in medieval times and small river exists today?

Do you need any of the maps of the area? From ex-yugoslav atlases, to the newer maps?

Do you have any point here? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can close the case and I suggest return of article to its original state before editing of Santasa, however question about unreliable sources remains open so everyone here should discuss that issue becouse these sources are used as evidence in other articles.Mikola22 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Medieval times are more like Game of thrones series, than todays national states" - Are we serious here?

@SportingFlyer:, why are we ignoring facts that Mikola entered Original research references, and Ceha reverted to that version a couple of times? I am not commenting them in this, but the fact that content with those references is not quality content, especially when we have sources like Vego, Anđelić, Mrgić, and Hadžijahić? Mhare (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, you are counting all the sources which are labeled as nationalistic or problematic? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare:, look flyer is "neutral" and has no stake in it, it's just happens he disagree with me and agrees with Ceha and Mikola. As for the last Ceha and Mikola lines, it's just WP:Baiting don't fall for it.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• DMacks (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Article contains numerous erroneous and obviously false assertions. There are multiple instances of negative biases, opinions, mischaracterizations, and false representations of the homeopathy remedy. It is broadly panned by categorical and unscientific assertions, and presents a dearth factual value, supported evidence, fair and/or objective narratives. The article should be completely rewritten and revised, and present content removed.

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

Revision history tells the tail, " 23:43, 1 December 2019‎ 99.203.26.152 talk‎ 20,887 bytes +191‎ Last edits were obviously made by a pHARMa shill who has never bothered to test the remedy themselves, I’ve made a few corrections based on Personal experience with this remedy.", "13:35, 29 November 2019‎ 24.13.225.125 talk‎ 20,722 bytes +12‎ Whoever rewrote this article removed any valid sources... it’s completely biased. Not sure how to report "

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Lock the page, utilize an unbiased and reputable source of information.

Summary of dispute by DMacks

Oscillococcinum discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Slavery in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• I am the only one (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The writer is claiming that prisoners who are on a work detail as part of their punishment and/or efforts to rehabilitate them is a continuation of the same practice of slavery as it existed before the Emancipation Proclamation, the end of the Civil War or even the 13th Amendment. This is patently ridiculous if only on the historical basis of how innocent people had been forced into slavery against their will. Secondly, convicted criminals should not have any expectation that they are going to be monetarily rewarded for choosing a life of crime over a legal occupation. Furthermore, there is an immense cost to society of tracking down potential suspects involved in a single crime, conducting investigations into the people brought in for questioning to determine which one is the likely suspect, appointing a public defender if a suspect does not have a defense attorney, holding a preliminary hearing for the purposes of determining his culpability in the crime, conducting a formal indictment hearing, scheduling a trial, sending out notices to prospective jurists, interviewing the jurists, seating the jury who are approved for the trial, conducting the trial, holding a sentencing hearing, remanding the suspect into custody for the beginning of his sentence and possibly going through an appeals process if his defense attorney files one. So, the sentence in the article, "In California, 2,500 incarcerated workers are fighting wildfires for only $1 per hour, which saves the state as much as $100 million a year" fails to mention how much it costs the State to put them in prison and provide for their needs for the duration of their sentences.

A bigger issue I have with the article is how it placed this discussion about the US between discussions on China's and North Korea's prison labor camps, equating the horrific practices of repressive Communist dictatorships with the freest Democracy on earth where individual freedoms and civil rights of the accused are second to none.

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

This is my first attempt to resolve this dispute ad I came here because there were no links to any talk pages related to this issue.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Remove the discussion of prison work programs in the US from the entire section on slavery in the 21st Century as it does not belong there. It is a reflection of the ideological bias of the writer and not a fact-based discussion that is relevant to the article and to the commonly-understood definition of slavery.

Summary of dispute by I am the only one

Slavery in the 21st century discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• U.S. Route 2 in Washington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• SounderBruce (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over citing links on whether or not they should be updated.

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

Talk:U.S._Route_2_in_Washington

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By encouraging communication and to help reach a final decision.

Summary of dispute by 2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA

The dispute is over external links and citations. The updates are necessary in case new information is added and also to remind others of most recent update. They are also necessary in case of link rot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SounderBruce

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed a high number of changes being made by an anonymous user that made changes to existing citations in this GA without explaining through an edit summary or any changes to the content that is being cited. After reverting, leaving notes, and explaining why this should not be done (in the name of verifiability at the time of the content being added), this user has hopped between various IP addresses and has been making accusations that are not in good faith. There has been intervention by other users before (with a block on one for edit warring), but the status quo would be fine. SounderBruce 01:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

U.S. Route 2 in Washington discussion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Borsoka (talk · contribs)
• Norfolkbigfish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1. Dispute on the presentation of monarchy in the Crusader states. 2. Presentation of information based on reference to non-specialized literature.

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

Talk:Crusades#"More enncyclopedic". Talk:Crusades#Non-specialized literature

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A 3rd party can understand both parties' concerns. Thank you for your mediation.

Summary of dispute by Norfolkbigfish

On 1:

• There appears to be an objection to the use of Joshua Prawer as a source for information in the monarchy section on the grounds it is 50 years old, although Prawer was using primary sources from the 13th century so I suspect nothing much has changed in those in the meantime.
• It is claimed that this is not NPOV. Christopher Tyerman (Professor of History at Oxford University and Fellow at Hertford) , used as multiple sources in the article describes Prawer as the leading post 1945 scholar of Outremer (the subject in question) on page 459 of his 2019 book used in the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• There is historiographical debate around colonialism in which his views have been challenged but this is about the legal system and governance. I am not aware these have faced similar debate but the two have been conflated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On 2:

• The Mamluks were an important factor in the crusades—eventually they took over in Eqypt and destroyed the Crusader states. Due to editing they are now mentioned only three times and not explained. I used a reputable source on the history of the Turkish peoples to explain who they are, where they came from and how they became embedded in Islamic power structures as part of a FAR. Basorka has repeatedly removed this seemingly on the grounds that it isn't sourced to a book on the Crusades. It was previously longer and went to dispute resolution. In seeking compromise—which I now regret— I accepted that the wider text on Middle Eastern State Formation could be edited out on the grounds of size.

• bText is: Turkic migration into the Middle East began in the 9th century and Middle Eastern states used slave soldiers captured from the borderlands of Khurasan and Transoxania, transported to central Islamic lands, converted to Islam and given military training. These were known as ghulam or mamluks, in theory slaves have greater loyalty but within decades some rose progressivly to become rulers themselves—the Tulunids in Egypt and Syria (868–905) and the Ikhshidids who followed in Egypt (935–969).

• Source is: * Findley, Carter Vaughn (2005). The Turks in World History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516770-2.

• Page was: 67

Further:

• It was also suggested the last time it came to arbitration the edit waring should cease. I stepped back to let the filing editor complete his work. On completion I started to follow through on the filing editor's suggestions e.g. fix a point in the lead, look at neutrality in the Monarchy section and undertake a copyedit. At this point the filing editor began aggressively reverting edits without recourse to the Talk page

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC) Updated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Worth noting that this text was included in a version that got 4 supports at FAR. It looked it was going to be approved before the filing editor becameinvolved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crusades/archive3 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Crusades discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. There has been a great deal of discussion at the article talk page. Stop Edit-Warring! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I am—the other editor—aware. I will step back from editing the article until this is resolved. Current situation is impossible. Pinging @CaptainEek: and @Onceinawhile: so they are aware this dispute has been raised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I hope this debate is now resolved. In order to help mediate, I have gone to the library to quote from the specialist literature - see discussion at [1] in this thread Talk:Crusades#Mamluks and their place in Islamic Power structures. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately there are two strands to the dispute. This appears to cover the filing editors second point. The use of Prawer is still out standing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have asked the filing editor on the article's talk page to state objectively what the issues are with the material cited to Prawer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I've never chimed in here before, so forgive me if I'm going wrong by this contribution. I wonder if this dispute can be helped by thinking about the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a history journal, but an encyclopedia. While there are no doubt more modern sources than Prawer, and no doubt in the intervening years some interesting and occasionally important nuggets of reinterpretation have been elucidated, but this is hardly a Victorian historian we're talking about here. But an encyclopedia should not mislead or misinform. I'd suggest that it's appropriate to use him as a reliable source, except for soecific points on which his work has been categorically refuted. Can you both live with that? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I could, don't know whether the filing editor could? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just a side remark: I notified the other editor on the article's Talk page. Yes, that is what I want to achieve: we cannot describe his PoVs as facts. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller: and @Robert McClenon:, according to my previous experiences personal remark are not allowed during this discussion. Above one can read remarks that describe me as "aggressive". Can I comment them or will they be deleted? The sole editor who has so far initiated two dispute resolution processes during a lengthy discussion can rarely described as an aggressive editor. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka I think we've handled this on the other user's talk page. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Borsoka - This isn't my discussion, because it appears that User:Dweller is mediating, but, since I was pinged, is there an issue about a personal characterization? I don't see a remark referring to an editor as "aggressive", but thatThat sort of comment could be viewed as a personal attack. If someone did say that, I don't see it, which could mean that it might have been deleted. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the articles, not to improve other editors. Don't say anything that could be seen as harsh; it is uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Replied on article talk page. No POV here, everything sourced to Prawer who the filing now agrees meets WP:RS. Unfortunately, the filing editor still seems reluctant to accept Dweller's reasonable compromise above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I have never denied that Prawer is a reliable source. 2. I clearly accepted Dweller's reasonable compromise above. Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

IN that case, are we done here? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the POV tag on this basis, unless this causes any further debate I am good. (Having sorted this, if you could arrange for some points out of Leicester at the weekend it would round things off nicely :-)) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish:, why did you remove the PoV tag. The section is not neutral, because it presents a scholarly PoV as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• The filing editor has reverted the removal of the POV tag. It appears the issue is not resolved on the basis of an argument that a RS is presenting a POV. Help! (I will not touch the section until this is resolved in order to avoid Edit Warring) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Would it help to simply put an "according to Prawer" in front of the information, to mark it as an opinion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• It could hardly help: we should also present contrasting views, as per WP:NPOV. There are at least 4 historians whose views are quiete different. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should simply avoid PoV statements and present facts. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Re. "There are at least 4 historians whose views are qui(e)te different" – where can we read about these views? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• There are three quotes in section "More enncycopedic" (sic) of the article's Talk page. Lock, a third historian, was cited in a former version of the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• One in fact supports Prawer in the preface, one source is not about the Crusades and in the article talk one has an outstanding question about which time period the quote referes to. None are cited in the article and page numbers are unknown. None of this is a fundamental problem but without resolution it is difficult to debate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• If one read only one sentence in the preface can conclude that "one in fact supports", but we should read more than one sentence in books. We are not here to find sentences to support PoVs, but to provide a full, neutral and verified picture of the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, the preface implies that Prawer's views are also improperly summarized in the section. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you should workshop this on a page in userspace and tackle the problem point by point, rather than through the addition of a blanket POV notice and the removal of it. I'll help you when I can (my time is limited). Visit User:Dweller/Crusades once it's a bluelink --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Than you for your suggestion. Yes, I applied specific in-text tags - they were reatedly deleted. I initiated a discussion on tha Talk page - it wa ignored. Then I placed a large template in the section. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would help if you removed the large template and restored the in-text tags? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dweller—would be happy to try, but I don't know how to? Is there any easy guidance for Dummies to follow you could point us at? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC) I'll guide you at the userspace pages. Look out for the notifications. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - User:Dweller is mediating. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Taking advantage of User:Dweller's kind mediation. Will focus on content, not personalities. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI the filing editor has rejected the compromise on the Turkish text and raised a RFC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades#RfC:pre-Seljuk Turks and the crusades. Don't think this is within Dweller's current locus. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The filing editor ignored two closely cooperating editors' "compromise" to prevent the inclusion of irrelevant information in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ian Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PopesTouch (talk · contribs)
• Zubin12 (talk · contribs)
• SharabSalam (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Zubin12 is removing positive opinions of Smith from the page, while leaving in negative opinions.

For example, he changed the opening paragraph, which normally says "Smith, who has been described as personifying white Rhodesia, remains a highly controversial figure—supporters venerate him as a man of integrity and vision who understood the uncomfortable truths of Africa, while critics describe an unrepentant racist whose policies and actions caused the deaths of thousands and contributed to Zimbabwe's later crises." to say "Smith, who has been described as personifying white Rhodesia, remains a highly controversial figure critics describe him as an unrepentant racist whose policies and actions caused the deaths of thousands and contributed to Zimbabwe's later crises."

He tried to get the article slanted against Smith on the talk page in August 2018, other users thought he was in the wrong then, so now he's just trying to do it unilaterally.

I reverted his POV-pushing edits, only for SharabSalam to accuse me of edit warring.

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

I have reverted the POV-pushing, disruptive edits and left a message on SharabSalam's page explaining that removing POV-pushing from an article is not edit warring.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can help explain to the other two users what neutrality and edit-warring actually are.

Summary of dispute by Zubin12

Summary of dispute by SharabSalam

The edit waring I was referring to is the change of the photo in the infobox. Two or three editors have opposed changing the photo yet Popes kept adding it. For the NPOV, I haven't discussed this yet but I will give an example of giving undue weight and false balance, "supporters venerate him as a man of integrity and vision who understood the uncomfortable truths of Africa" which is in the lead section is sourced to this BBC article which doesn't say who are these supporters and the article in Wikipedia gives these unnamed supporters opinion too much undue weight. Please keep in mind that this is the same guy who said that “the white man is master of Rhodesia. He has built it, and he intends to keep it” and "The more we killed, the happier we were". Also who RSs describe him and his party as a white nationalist and a white supremacist.e.g NYT. And there is no mention of this fact nowhere in the article. Also those unnamed supports didn't explain what is the "uncomfortable truths of Africa", did they mean the fact that Europeans stole African people's land? Does this statement even fit in an encyclopedia and in the lead section?.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ian Smith discussion

• Volunteer Note - The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Didn't tagging them in this page notify them? PopesTouch (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

PopesTouch, I didn't receive any notification. Also even if you tagged us you would also have to come to our talk pages and send us a notification. see what it says at the top of this noticeboard: "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: ((subst:drn-notice))."--SharabSalam (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Module:Efn native lang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Geographyinitiative (talk · contribs)
• Ythlev (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Potentially promising new module created by Ythlev names the name and gives a link to only one type of romanization while ignoring the names of other types of official romanization schemes used in Taiwan.

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

Referred here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring also from the talk page of the module

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think we need to compare this template to similar templates in other areas- are there precedents for this template in other languages?

Summary of dispute by Ythlev

The proposed edit by Geographyinitiative has been under discussion on the talk page and they have not responded to the latest comments in two sections. Instead the user edit-wars.

It was pointed out that based on WP:NOT, Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. To expand on that, Wikipedia articles can't contain everything. Words in non-English languages on English Wikipedia don't have much encyclopedic value in general. MOS:FOREIGN: Foreign words should be used sparingly.

Furthermore, the user pointed out that Hokkien should have romanisation indication text the way Mandarin does, with no regards to the differences between the usage between the languages. They made an edit that led to incorrect information. The user also thinks there should be Bopomofo and Wade-Giles in the template without considering WP:BALASP. This leads me to believe they are advocating for equal status of the various languages and transcription schemes, which Wikipedia is not the place for based on WP:NOTADVOCACY. Ythlev (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Module:Efn native lang discussion

• Volunteer Question - I am not entirely sure what this dispute is about, but I can see that it is about a module, which I think is a program. This noticeboard is normally for content disputes about articles. Is this dispute about a program? If so, what is the program intended to do? While articles are the work of the Wikipedia community, it has been my experience in a career in computer programming that is usually better if a program is written by one person with reasonable discussion with other people. If that is the case, and if there is still a disagreement about a program, I am willing to act as an Engineering Review Board, but I first want to establish what the dispute is about. I would suggest that each editor make a one-paragraph statement as to whether this is about a program, and what they want to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute is not the coding but what gets printed by the module. Ythlev (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - What gets printed by the module is an output requirement for the module, and so affects what has to be coded to print the output. This does appear to be an issue about the requirements for a program. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Comment - An issue has also been raised at WP:ANI. This thread will be closed as pending in another forum. I am leaving it open only to allow these comments to be read easily for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Robert Falcon Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• New-polymath (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Irrational content blocking.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Falcon_Scott?oldformat=true

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by looking at the discussion content and arguments provided that changes of distances is in line with all wiki policies.

Robert Falcon Scott discussion

Good Day, I am Nightenbelle, and I am going to volunteer to take on this dispute. I've read the discussions here and on the talk page up to this point and I understand the concerns. This disagreement seems to be centered around which unit of measurement to use. There also seems to be some confusion on WP:Concensus. Unfortunately, this seems to be a fairly easy case. As SchroCat pointed out, we have a Style Guide for Wikipedia that we follow for all articles. I realize there are 10+ books that use Nautical miles, but Wikipedia does not for land based distances. If you disagree with that policy, there are proceedures to suggest changes, but an argument on an article talk page is not the place.

I don't see a problem with adding a footnote to the article that points out that Scott used Nautical miles. Perhaps at the first mention of distances? But until/unless Wikipedia policies change- the distances should stay as they are. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to add- New-polymath, your passion for this subject is admirable. But I do suggest you review Wikipedia policies a little bit. Insisting on getting your way is generally frowned upon, as is repeating the same argument multiple times. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and sometimes that means that the finer points of a topic don't get the attention that experts feel they deserve, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- striving to create a readable, understandable introduction to a topic, not the be-all, end all authority on a topic. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The other editor who commented in the thread, Ahiijny, also suggested a clarifying footnote to deal with the question of historical distances of the sources, and it's one I agree with fully. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I would like to add that I've been working on a write-up summarizing the discussion so far (I'll add it to the Talk discussion in a bit). I personally don't think it's as clear-cut as this (for example, it could be argued that the Terra Nova expedition was a nautical one, especially considering they were navigating primarily using latitude), and I think it's worth examining in a bit more detail more making a final decision. But again, I wouldn't particularly mind either option. Ahiijny (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I look forward to your summary, I apologize if I have missed something. I do realize that their journey is in a bit of a gray zone for nautical vs. land based- but since they were using land-based means of transportation over solid surface for the "important" part of the trip, that is what I went by. The decision is by no means final yet. Just my $0.02 based on what I read so far- please make your case for the nautical point of view- But the argument would need to be why this is considered a nautical journey- not how the measurements are done by other resources. The type of journey would determine the units of measurement by policy. Thanks! Nightenbelle (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• (a) I thought DRN volunteers were supposed to remain neutral on the content questions.
• (b) A very confused talk page discussion (confused because of one eager participant's talking too much and listening/reading too little) of 72 hours doesn't warrant DRN.
• (c) I am the principal architect of the presentation of the guidelines at WP:MOSNUM, though I have had relatively little to do with developing its content; in other words, I know those guidelines thoroughly but have little investment in the particular choices they express. I'll give my analysis back on the article talk page (summary: MOSNUM is clear that the primary units should be (statute) miles) and that's where this discussion should proceed.

This request should be closed as premature. EEng 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my use of the word important indicated a bias one way or the other. I couldn't think of a better term to use, I'm sure there was a better way to state what I meant. But I have remained neutral on content. As I understand it- I am supposed to read both sides, and help find a solution.

As you said- the answer is clear, policy says statute miles. But in the interest of staying neutral, I saw no problem in waiting for further statements from involved parties.

Now that those statements have been made and read, and looking at several other related articles, I'm sorry but I don't see any good reason why the above mentioned policy does not apply. WP:MOSNUM is pretty clear- since the majority of the journey was land-based, statute miles are the correct unit of measure to use. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

----

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Everett Stern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Everettstern (talk · contribs)
• Marchjuly (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)
• Primefac (talk · contribs)
• Sportsplex03 (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page has undergone a massive transformation in the last 5 days. The content in its current form is not only inaccurate but also conjecture, not a single citation supports the current intro section where 10 used to. Sides have formed on the talk page and politics, literally Republicans and Liberals, have been brought into the talk page. Major primary sources, including the Readers Digest have been stripped from the page (citations used to be at 54 now down to 40). It seems as if the sides are just out to Win vs get the content to the most accurate point possible. The diffs for reference are: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930434324 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everett_Stern&oldid=930248600

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

Talk:Everet_Stern#Founding_date_and_other_concerns

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe the major version differences should be examined by NPOV to decide on a compromised version of the article that best serves the public, the subject, and Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by EverettStern

Summary of dispute by MarchJuly

Summary of dispute by Drmies

Summary of dispute by Primefac

Summary of dispute by Sportsplex03

Summary of dispute by NorthbySouthbaranof

Everett Stern discussion

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be a one-against-many dispute involving the subject of this article, who has not notified the other editors of this filing. (The spellings of user names have been corrected. It helps to spell user names correctly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon, they're also on some other noticeboard; I just got pinged. Worse, I have no idea what the supposed dispute is, or what I have to do with it. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Fox News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Curivity (talk · contribs)
• Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs)
• BullRangifer (talk · contribs)
• Edit5001 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Fox News Lead is not following NPOV or Reliable Sourcing Standards

Fox News's lead is not following reliable sourcing standards because it is using completely biased opinionated sources to establish a descriptive detailing of a company's page (i.e. the lead paragraph). I, along with many others, on the article's talk page, have discussed restructuring or removing the third paragraph of the lead because of biased sourcing and a reluctance to include information that is contradictory to the narrative portrayed by the sources in question.

I have very rarely seen opinion columns used in the lead, especially for a news organization's article. I suggest we restructure or remove the third paragraph of the lead for not following Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards, specifically regarding NPOV.

The article contains highly controversial statements in the opening paragraph about FOX News' perceived bias, they're support for Republican candidates, and accusations that they attack members of the Democrat Party and left-wing politics in general. Similar claims are routinely made about CNN and MSNBC for the other side, yet their pages do not show this information in the opening paragraph. All three articles should get the same scrutiny for their bias and politics, and this information probably should not be in the introductory paragraphs. Once this article is cleaned up, it should be locked from editing by anyone other than the Wikipedia team.

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

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please advise if these sources are indeed following Wikipedia's standards, because if so, we should be allowed to present opposing viewpoints, such as [19] to the lead without question, or place equally partisan sourcing on CNN or MSNBC's articles stating bias, which we have been reverted immediately without explanation. Fox News and other conservative outlets should not have a different standard when enforcing these rules.

Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans

Summary of dispute by BullRangifer

Summary of dispute by Edit5001

Fox News 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.