Closed as abandoned by filer. The filing editor opened this case, and has not replied to two requests for statements as to what they want to change or leave the same in the article. It is now about 72 hours after the second such request. Maybe the instructions to filers need to make it clear that one should not just file a case request unless one plans to discuss it. Editors may resume normal editing of the article, and should discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Riley Gaines. Do not edit-war. Report disruptive editing at Arbitration Enforcement, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
Hello. Riley Gaines is contentious topics page as she has spoken out about the trans women in sports debate. There are editors who have used biased sources and misleading words throughout the article have been edited. However, one user keeps reverting my one edit specifically, where a group she has worked with constantly labelled anti-trans when in fact there is no proper source to describe them as transphobic. Their website and secondary sources about them would characterize them as a pro-woman advocacy group or a political entity with diverse investments in the debate. Anti-trans is an opinion label.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe this article is ideologically biased as has some problematic sourcing. As it’s part of a contentious articles debate, editors have used this page to express their opinions on the matter. There is a repetitive use of the words anti-trans to refer to groups that are not transphobic. Plus, it looks like editors will only keep content if it’s about how Riley is advocating for the exclusion of trans women in sports and any criticism related to it but not the support, so it’s not balanced.
Summary of dispute by DanielRigal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lisha2037 is edit warring and editing tendentiously on Riley Gaines. She has already been warned for an unjustified personal attack in an edit summary (diff) and is now venue shopping by bringing it here after nobody has agreed with her on Talk:Riley Gaines. She is trying to remove reliably referenced content and to insert improperly referenced content in furtherance of her own POV. (A POV she makes quite clear in that edit summary!) Specifically, she seems to misunderstand that it is not necessary for a group to admit to a label for us to apply that label if it is reliably sourced. The sourcing for "anti-trans" was perfectly adequate before and I have since improved it with an additional source. Clearly she is aware of WP:TENDENTIOUS, as she brought it up herself here. Without assuming bad faith, I do think she is too invested in one view of this topic to be able to edit constructively. (The fact that she refers to Gaines by forename above might be indicative.) I'd like to propose that she be topic banned from Riley Gaines with an understanding that this could be expanded into a broader topic ban, covering all GENSEX articles, later, if she takes a similar approach elsewhere. That seems like an appropriately minor sanction which would not prevent her from editing in other areas provided she does so constructively, as she has done on other topics in the past and, I hope, will do so again. (Please note that I was not notified of this report. I only found it because I checked Lisha2037's contribution history.) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Please note Lisha2037 removed the warning thread I linked to above in this diff after I had linked it here. I am not sure whether that was routine housekeeping or an attempt to hide material that illuminates her behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Riley Gaines discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello. Thank you for opening this up. If you see my edit history of the page, you will see I have added factual information of Gaines advocating for bills banning trans athletes in Ohio. I’m posting information here because I want to contribute to the growth of this website and I’m doing it in good faith. I’m not an editor here but have been for years at newspapers, so even if I don’t have the experience here doesn’t mean I should just get banned when I should be asking the right questions and am still learning to do something I do for free and cause I care about knowledge. No where in the Independent Women's Forum Wikipedia article are they listed as anti-trans, and the articles the user posed for citation are opinion pieces. The label anti-trans connotantes transphobic behaviour, which the group has not officially advocated for on their website. It is common editorial standard to rather be safe than sorry. It is more reflective of a balanced article to not have a controversial label in front of a groups name that’s disputed than to have it. Lisha2037 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that this is relevant here but I was surprised to see that it was not mentioned there. I have opened a discussion about it here, proposing that it be added. The key point is that we have multiple Reliable Sources explicitly describing them as "anti-trans" and detailing their anti-trans activities. Everything else is noise. DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion, since three editors are ready to take part in discussion. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the usual ruleset when a contentious topic is the subject. By taking part in this moderated discussion, you are acknowledging that the topic is contentious because it involves gender and sexuality and American politics. Be civil and concise. Overly long answers are not always useful, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. In moderated discussion, the moderator represents the community, and parties should address their posts to the moderator (me) and the community.
The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, Riley Gaines. I will ask each editor to state, concisely, what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what they want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Riley Gaines)
I think this will be simplest as a bulleted list:
I oppose the addition of the content added here, and later removed by RoxySaunders citing WP:Puffery, because it is improperly referenced using YouTube videos and a primary source. I also see it as promotional in the way that it boasts about the views that the YouTube videos received as if that indicated notability. I also oppose the way in which that edit swaps out an independent, journalistic source for a transcript of Gaines' testimony.
I am neutral on the addition of a mention of Gaines' involvement with the Leadership Institute provided it is neutrally worded and can be Reliably referenced, i.e not only to Gaines or the Institute itself. I am also neutral on the use of the transcript as an additional source.
I oppose the removal of the description of IWV as "anti-trans" here, as that has been the status-quo text for at least a few months (I didn't look further back than that) and it is very well supported, now by multiple Reliable Sources.
I mildly oppose the removal of the section heading "Transgender women in sports" here as I think that is a good, neutral description of the content in that section. I don't think that it is a huge deal but I do feel that the article would be slightly less informative without it.
So far, one editor has made a statement that answered my question about what they want to change in the article. DRN Rule D says that each editor is expected to reply to the moderator at least every 48 hours. If an editor is planning to take a wikibreak of more than 48 hours, please let me know and I may tweak the rules. It has been 48 hours since I asked the editors what they want to change (or leave the same). If you have any questions, you may ask them. If you have any comments about article content, they are welcome, but discuss content, not contributors. The filing editor has not replied to my opening question. If I don't see answers that identify an article content issue to be resolved with 24 48 more hours, I will close this case as abandoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I am open to changes to the article, but I am not looking for any in particular. I was waiting on the filer to see how to respond. For the record, Robert, it doesn't appear that Rule D has a 48-hour response requirement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 15 August 2024 (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.
Closed as not discussed on the article talk page. The article talk page shows that there has not been any discussion there in the past six months. The filing editor and the IP should discuss at Talk:Turntablist transcription_methodology. That is what the article talk page is for. Also, stop edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have adhered to Wikipedia standards by adding citations and links to support fact-checked content, maintaining a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and removing unsourced additions. Additionally, I have improved the article’s layout with a clearer timeline to reduce redundancy.
However, another user* persistently reverts the article to a version that appears biased and cluttered with uncited information. The central issue seems to revolve around the inclusion of an "inventor" credit, which is inherently subjective. To uphold NPOV, I have removed all mentions of "inventor" and similar terms.
Despite these efforts, the revert pattern continues without resolution. Could a Wikipedia expert intervene to assist in resolving this issue? Also, under what circumstances could a user be blocked for disregarding Wikipedia standards?
Thank you for your assistance.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I repeatedly suggested adherence to Wikipedia standards. I cleaned up the article by maintaining portions of the user's revisions and reinforced these portions with verified citations. I removed most of the unverified language (e.g. "The first...")
Please, formally ask all users to adhere to Wikipedia standards. Ask to add citations to support fact-checked content, as well as keep a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Possibly, explain with examples from the article (or article history) what is not permitted. Lastly, warn users that they can be blocked if requests are ignored.
Summary of dispute by 2601:C2:87F:B9B0:A91D:36B7:A183:533A
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Turntablist transcription_methodology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
A scientific paper was published in Theoretical Mathematics and Applications (TMA). The editor of the page or a person who controls the page, I do not know which, David Epstein alleged the journal is not a "reliable source" and thus the content of the paper cannot be considered for entry into the page. I presented objective evidence that TMA meets all the requirements of a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia. The talk page has been blocked from further discussion. I believe TMA has been incorrectly ruled a non-reliable source. I want his decision reversed and the Collatz Conjecture talk page opened up for discussion of proposed edits.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I e-mailed the person directly several times (the first several months ago) in the hope of avoiding a edit-war and making edits to page that were neutral.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I need the person to stop blocking TMA and allow the discussion on the talk page to continue so neutral-voice edits can be made to the page.
Summary of dispute by David Eppstein
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It is correct that I oppose the addition of this source, as I believe it to be unreliably published, incorrect, and crankery. The author's behavior only strengthens that opinion. That said, I do not WP:OWN the Wikipedia Collatz article, have no special place among its other editors, and believe my position to be representative of the consensus of other editors there. I would like this editor to stop emailing me and hassling me on my talk page as if it is somehow my personal responsibility to publicize their paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Collatz Conjecture discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
David Epstein also objected. The only one pushing for inclusion of this material is the IP. "Evidence" of reliable include highmarks like having an ISSN (like every periodical in the world) and being included in trivial listings like JournalSeek, which pretty much amount to saying 'this journal exists'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}20:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I guess that my pointing out that the journal's publisher was on Beall's list is not strictly speaking objecting to the proposed addition; for the avoidance of doubt, I also object to it. Also pinging TrangaBellam, who is the person who closed the discussion on the talk-page (correctly, in my view). --JBL (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Beall is a very very bad sign. Beall makes the occasional mistake, but when you combine it with the removal of indexing in ZBl/MathSciNet, both together is rather conclusive that this is not a respected math journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:00, 19 August 2024 (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.
An RfC has been started regarding the infobox. Please !vote and explain your reasonings there. After the RfC ran its course, its closure may be requested at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Rule D no longer applies; feel free to edit the body as we have discussed. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
On the ethnic groups of Algeria in the country card, it mentions 85% arab and 15% berber, however in the source provided it says 99% arab Berber and less than 1% european, a note uner this stat in the source shows "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population", here there is is not only no mention of 85% arab, but the source clearly states that almost ALL aalgerians are amazigh in origin therefore the number 85% provided is false and is original reseach by the contributor.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I suggest one of 2 revisions to the ethnic groups card in algeria :
- Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%)
- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which 15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)
Summary of dispute by Skitash
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This topic has already been addressed several times in Talk:Algeria. Although the CIA World Factbook states that 99% of the population is "Arab-Amazigh", this is problematic because it creates confusion due to the lack of sources explaining what an "Arab-Amazigh" or "Arab-Berber" precisely means, and the few sources that use this term only mention it in passing. It also remains unclear whether this 99% figure combines Arab and Berber populations or represents people of mixed Arab and Berber origins. The Arab-Berber article was eventually redirected for exactly this reason. This is why the decision was made to use more specific divisions of ethnic identity, supported by multiple sources in Algeria#Demographics. The CIA source also notes that "only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population", meaning that the remainder of "Arab-Berbers" would identify as Arab, and this perfectly aligns with other reliable sources.[1][2] I have attempted to resolve the issue by adding a footnote to the infobox outlining the different ethnic percentage ranges according to various sources. Hopefully, this resolves the issue. Skitash (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
^"Algeria Ethnic Groups". study.com. Retrieved 2024-08-18. Partly due to the strong association between Islam and Arab identity, there is a fair amount of social pressure in Algeria to identify with Arab ancestry. In fact, roughly 85% of the nation identifies much more strongly with their Arab heritage than their Berber heritage.
Algeria discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Algeria)
After looking into this issue, I am willing to act as the moderator in this dispute.
I would like to ask the participants to please read Wikipedia:DRN Rule D and indicate that you will comply with it. Please note that discussions related to infoboxes are designated as a contentious topic. By agreeing to the rules, you state that you are aware of this. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not contributor.
So it appears to me that Skitash would like the status quo to remain, and Potymkin would like changes to the infobox. I have two questions for Potymkin: 1. Are you fine with the current state of Algeria#Ethnic_groups or would you also like changes to that? If yes, please state those. 2. The CIA Factbook states that although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population and Study.com states that In fact, roughly 85% of the nation identifies much more strongly with their Arab heritage than their Berber heritage. Considering this, could you elaborate on what changes you want to the infobox and why? Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Thank you Kovcszaln6 for looking into the matter carefully, I would happily answer your questions :
1. Are you fine with the current state of Algeria#Ethnic_groups or would you also like changes to that?
I am not fine with the current state if it, I propose either we insert :
- Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%)
- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which 15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)
this initial suggestion was mentioned in the talk page when the Algeria ethnic groups tap had 1 source this morning and that was before 12:50, 18 August 2024. When the user Skitash had changed the source after talk in the article had failed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Algeria#Ethnic_groups_Algeria . the edit by Skitash was DURING the time the dispute resolution has already been issued and after he was informed not to make any changes until the dispute had been resolved, I must remind you that Editing a Wikipedia article while a dispute resolution process is ongoing is considered a violation of Wikipedia's policies, specifically regarding edit warring and disruption of the consensus-building process. so instead of Only the CIA factbook website the user deliberately edited the article after he was warned also (refer to edit summary in Algeria article).
So when the article had sourced the CIA fact book it mentions that "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab". the User Skitash deduced that 85% of algerians are arabs which is considered original research by wikipedia, for proof you can look at the talk page in article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Algeria#Ethnic_groups_Algeria where user skitash uses the source that mentions the opposite of what he claims.
the user blatantly violated Wikipedia terms of dispute resolution.
concerning your second question after the user violated Wikipedia terms of dispute resolution and added from study.com. the website also mentions "most Algerians are genetically Berber", here in our discussion on ethnicity it is important to note that most algerians are ethnically berber from the sources provided by him, identifying with arab is a cultural phenomena not an ethnic phenomena, and therefore it should not be in the ethnicity tab of algeria.
the number provided of algerians being 85% arab is the user's own conlusions and do not exist in the CIA factbook about algeria, in fact the source warns again that 'almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab'.
in conclusion the user not only violated Wikipedia's terms but also his sources contradict his claims.
@Potymkin: I asked you to indicate your acceptance of DRN Rule D. This was not stated. I also asked (and it's also in DRN Rule D) to comment on content, not contributor. At DRN, we deal with content issues, not conduct issues. Please rewrite your statement below keeping these in mind. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for elaborating, I state that I accept DRN Rule D.
Answering questions :
1. Are you fine with the current state of Algeria#Ethnic_groups or would you also like changes to that?
I am not fine with the current state of it, I propose either we insert :
- Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%)
- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which 15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)
2.Considering this, could you elaborate on what changes you want to the infobox and why?
- Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%)
- Arab Amazigh 99%, (of which 15% identify as Primarily Amazigh) | European (less than 1%)
Why ? It is whats mentioned in the CIA factbook about algeria "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population", most algerians are ethnically berber from the sources provided ,identifying with arab is a cultural phenomena not an ethnic phenomena, and therefore it should not be in the ethnicity tab of algeria.
@Kovcszaln6 I am willing to accept DRN Rule D. Unfortunately, it appears that the root of this edit conflict stems from a misunderstanding. Ethnicity is based on self-identification, language, culture, history, etc. Potymkin appears to equate ethnicity with genetics, which is completely unrelated and not determining of ethnicity. According to the lead in ethnicity, "Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry". Although CIA World Factbook may correctly note that most Algerians had Berber ancestors, most Algerians today identify as Arab, speak Arabic, and practice Arab culture, therefore making them ethnically Arab. Britannica supports this by stating"More than three-fourths of the country is ethnically Arab". Additionally, the CIA World Factbook source states that only 15% of the population identifies as Berber, meaning that the remaining 85% identify as non-Berbers (i.e., Arab). Skitash (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Algeria)
Thank you for the responses. Skitash pointed out that ethnicity is based on self-identification, not genetics. Potymkin, considering this, do you still want changes in the article (the same or different)? If you do, please also consider the other sources. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
First statement by editors (Algeria)
Ethnicity is fundamentally rooted in genetics rather than self-identification, as it is defined by inherited biological traits that are passed down through generations. this shows clearly on a scholarly concensus that although the Romans for instance identified as being desendant of the Trojan race and argued for such in their history and mythology, no historian ever considers Romans as Trojans, the same is applied to Algeria with researchers and scholars who identify algerians as Amazighs or Berbers or Arabized Berbers or Arabized Amazighs but never consider Algerians ethnically arab as does CIA factbook and Study.com sources.
Scholars argue that genetic markers provide clear evidence of distinct ethnic groups, which are identified based on shared ancestry and genetic lineage. For instance, genetic studies have revealed significant differences in DNA sequences among various ethnic populations, supporting the idea that ethnicity is biologically determined rather than merely a social construct. While self-identification plays a role in how individuals perceive and express their ethnic identity, it cannot alter the underlying genetic reality that distinguishes one ethnic group from another. As noted by Cavalli-Sforza et al., "genetic evidence provides the most objective means to determine ethnicity" (Cavalli-Sforza, Luca (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press. pp. 19–22. ISBN9780691087504.). Furthermore, research by Rosenberg et al. highlights how genetic clustering aligns closely with traditional ethnic and geographical boundaries (Rosenberg, Noah A. (2002). "Genetic Structure of Human Populations". Science. 298 (5602): 2381–2385. doi:10.1126/science.1078311.). Therefore, while self-identification is an important aspect of personal and cultural identity, it does not override the genetic basis that defines ethnicity.
considering the academic concensus on the matter, one can hardly find in the page about the holy roman empire that it is composed of ethnic romans even if they identified as such, the population of the HRE for example is made up of Germans and scholars have solid concensus over such as they do with algeria from where you can see in the CIA factbook quote "although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab", the CIA fact book does not consider Algeria as made out of ethnic arabs and puts in the stats:
Arab-Amazigh (99%) | Primarily Amazigh (15%) | European (less than 1%
"Ethnicity is fundamentally rooted in genetics rather than self-identification"Ethnicity says otherwise. I'm not quite sure why this conversation is shifting into a scientific debate but it is a known fact that ethnic groups, like race, are social constructs based on self-identification. Ethnicities emerge through a process called ethnogenesis, where groups of people begin to identify with one another. According to BioMed Central, "Indeed, the terms race and ethnicity exist purely as social constructs and must not be used interchangeably with genetic ancestry. There is no scientific evidence that the groups we traditionally call “races/ethnicities” have distinct, unifying biological or genetic basis". For instance, an Algerian that only speaks Arabic and practices Arab culture has no reason to identify as a Berber based solely on genetics. Unlike genetics, ethnic identity is fluid, with individuals or groups sometimes changing or adapting their ethnic identity due to historical factors. Today, Algeria is predominantly Arab due to Arabization throughout history, "a process of cultural change in which a non-Arab society becomes Arab". Likewise, the vast majority of modern Syrians identify as Arabs and are regarded as such, despite being mostly descended from ancient Arameans. Skitash (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
In the previous version Skitach claimed that the sources were in the demographics section. One of these sources was genetic. Now that genetic sources give something else, he says that genetics is no longer suitable...
the mentions which affirm that the Arabs are descendants of Arabized Amazigh are systematically removed by Skitach: exemple Britanica: More than three-fourths of the country is ethnically Arab, though most Algerians are descendants of ancient Amazigh groups who mixed with various invading peoples from the Arab Middle East, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population
when you read the article Arab migrations to the Maghreb, everything has been done to make people believe in a replacement of the Amazigh natives by a population originating from the Arab peninsula, by a diversion of sources. Here we are in continuity with this POV, why not mention the genetic elements in the body of the text (excluding infobox) first? I have the impression of having a contradictor closed to any other option than the one he defends in disregard of the diversity of sources and WP:NPOV.
Thank you. There appears to be discussion happening at Talk:Algeria#Ethnic_groups_Algeria involving more editors, and this mediation doesn't seem like it's going anywhere. So I would suggest that you could continue the discussion on the talk page involving the other editors, and if that fails maybe consider an WP:RfC. Are you guys fine with that? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by editors (Algeria)
@Kovcszaln6: It actually seems this one-on-one discussion is progressing much more smoothly compared to the other, if we set aside the baseless comments made here by the other editor who only jumped in to violate DRN Rule D. So, I would greatly appreciate it if we could continue our discussion here. I'm open to reaching a common ground to resolve this dispute by proposing a percentage range in the infobox: 75–85% Arab, 15–25% Berber, based on the following sources:
Britannica: Algeria: "More than three-fourths of the country is ethnically Arab".
Algeria: History & Background: "The combined Arab-Berber people comprise more than 99 percent of the population (Arabs approximately 80 percent; Berbers 20 percent), with Europeans less than one percent".
Algeria Ethnic Groups"Partly due to the strong association between Islam and Arab identity, there is a fair amount of social pressure in Algeria to identify with Arab ancestry. In fact, roughly 85% of the nation identifies much more strongly with their Arab heritage than their Berber heritage."
Once again you select the information from the articles that suit you without explaining the concepts which is a misappropriation of sources.
For example, as hidden in Britanica “Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population.”
education.stateuniversity.com is this a serious source? following an official or academic publication?
Is « Changing Female Literacy Practices » in Algeria a source focused enough on the subject?
Why not retain other information in Algeria Ethnic Groups : « Officially 99% of Algerian identify as ethnically Arab-Berber" [...] So, if most Algerians are geneticallyBerber, what does this mean? Berbers are an ethnic group ancestrally indigenous to North Africa, also called the Amazigh. Historically, there was little to no semblance of Berber identity, with Berber groups identifying with tribes or clans rather than nationality or ethnicity. This is another reason that Arab identity became so strong; Berber identity was too varied to form the basis of a national identity. ».
A fundamental aspect of the sources is systematically eliminated: the Arabized Berber character of the Arabs. This is why the CIA Factbook speaks of « Arab-Amazigh ». This Amazigh origin of the « Arabs » is obscured on article.
Britanica : « Arab invasions in the 8th and 11th centuries brought only limited numbers of new people to the region but resulted in the extensive Arabization and Islamization of the indigenous Amazigh population. »
CIA Factbook : « although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab »
There are other sources such as Dmoh Bacha which, based on Bekada's study of the Algerian population, gives different figures: « — 65% d’ascendance ethnique berbère — 15% d’ascendance ethnique arabe du côté paternel — 20% d’ascendance diverses, Afrique sub-saharienne, Europe, Asie centrale. (Bekada, 2013) »
Unfortunately all the elements which do not point to the origin of the Algerian population from the Arabian Peninsula are eliminated and we keep sources and notions which make us believe the opposite. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Please stop trying to change the definition of ethnicity. The infobox literally links to ethnic group, which, as the lead explains, is based on self-identity, language, and culture—not genetics. The multiple sources I provided clearly make use of the words "ethnically" and "ethnic groups". "Arabized Berbers" are ethnically Arab by virtue of their identity, language, and culture. As for your source, it is 1) about genetics rather than ethnic groups, 2) WP:UNDUE, and 3) pertains to the entire Maghreb rather than specifically to Algeria, as it clearly states "Les tests ADN donnent un rapport génétique Arabe/Berbère au Maghreb". Being "Arab" does not imply originating from the Arabian Peninsula (not sure where you got that idea). This is the same reason the infobox in Syria doesn't say "74–75% Arabized Arameans" but rather "74–75% Arabs".
Kovcszaln6 Excuse me, this is the first time I have participated in this mediation format. I of course accept the rules. I disagree with Skitach's assertion. I'm answering for the genetics/ethnicity aspect (I hope this is the right place).
The concept of ethnicity includes an aspect of origins or biology (which is only one criterion among others unlike the old concept of race). The study of human migrations using DNA should therefore not be ruled out. As a source I will cite the article Identités biologiques, identités sociales et conflits ethniques en Afrique subsaharienne, section « L’ethnie entre biologie et culture : la notion d’origine »(Ethnicity between biology and culture: the notion of origin): «The notion of “common origin”, in this definition, appears to constitute the link between biology and culture.»
If the question of ethnology is "what is the population of Algeria", genetic or biological data cannot be excluded.
if the source explains that there are Arabized Berbers and that the CIA factbook defines: "Arab-Amazigh" as 99% of the ethnic group, it is not up to Skitach to deny the existence of this notion. The comparison argument look likz a WP:NOR argument, because the Berber or Arameans groups have their specificity. The Berbers and their language are a very vibrant cultural group, and aspects of North African culture are not limited to the language spoken (North African cuisine, clothing, such as couscous or burnous, are markers of Berber culture...)
The notion of having a large majority of Amazigh is not only found in genetic studies or sources on genetics. Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, «More than 70% of North Africains of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya.».
Let's stop trying to redefine ethnicity, or we'll be stuck here forever. Ethnicity is there for you to read if you want, and I am not willing to debate this further. Government censuses typically allow individuals to self-identify their ethnic affiliation, which forms the basis for determining a country's ethnic percentages. There's no practical way to determine genetic groups or ancestral backgrounds, especially given centuries of mixing and migrations in Algeria. No one is purely one thing, and identifying everyone's ancestry is impossible. Therefore, we must rely on how individuals self-identify based on language and culture. Let's focus on the fact that the vast majority of sources divide Algeria's population into 75–85% Arab and 15–25% Berber. Let's move on from the genetics debate.
Like I said before, there is no such thing as "Arab-Amazigh", and that article was redirected because that term is WP:UNDUE and lacks a definition. The CIA source is only there to confirm that only 15% of the population identifies as Berber. Skitash (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Although Skitash offers concessions concerning the percentages of the ethnicities the sources are solid that almost the entire population is Ethnically north african berber as @Monsieur Patillo suggests, both sides have made their points. a discussion in the Talk page has made several moderators step in and make a final edit to the Algeria article. I suggest we wrap up this dispute @Kovcszaln6, the admins have made final suggestions to end all ethnicity talk in the Algeria page once and for all. thank you very much for your mediation, it is greatly appreciated. It wouldn't be your problem from now on since the admins have taken over, I greatly suggest closing this talk page.--Potymkin (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on ethnicity does not itself exclude certain biological traits ( «Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with some groups having mixed genetic ancestry»). So why want to exclude them at all costs? The notion of African-American cited in the text is based solely on culture? or a supposed common origin? In your opinion, there is nothing to say and nothing to learn from the multiple studies on the Algerian population in the Article dedicated to Algeria?
It is then asserted by skitach: "There's no practical way to determine genetic groups or ancestral backgrounds, especially given centuries of mixing and migrations in Algeria. No one is purely one thing, and identifying everyone's ancestry is impossible." Please avoid these kinds of personal digressions. Nobody says that there is genetic purity. Only there are genetic studies to trace the origin of human migrations. Studies particularly on haplogroups. They reveal that the Algerian and North African population is (for the most part) not linked to migrations from the Arab peninsula. It is an intangible population data. I remind you that in the initial version of the Algeria article, there was reference (source) on genetics which did not bother anyone as long as it was supposed to prove that there were 85% « Arabs »...
The notion of Arab-Amazigh is quite simply that of Arab-Berber, it is extremely common, especially in French, to describe the ethnology or sociology of the Maghreb. There is no shortage of exemples : Google Books, or other or more specifically to Algeria.
Like @Kovcszaln6 said, debating the definition of ethnicity is outside of the scope of this dispute. So, let's put an end to this genetic debate. Ethnic groups are social constructs based on self-identity.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Full stop. There is no debate surrounding this. Again, are you fine with this suggestion? Skitash (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Conception of separating the biological from the cultural (all the articles you cite are in this ideological school and centered on the USA) comes from a late school of sociology (notably A. Wimmer) which itself responds to the old conception in force in the United States. After in the United States and in Western countries a constructivist definition is in vogue but it is itself subject to criticism and above all it does not have a monopoly on the definition of ethnicity .
« Alors que la race supposerait ce substrat biologique, voire génétique, l’ethnicité renverrait à des marqueurs entièrement culturels, c’est-à-dire à une origine définie par la communauté culturelle, l’identification à une patrie ou à des traditions communes. [...] la distinction entre la race comprise comme « fixe, imposée et excluante » et l’ethnicité décrite comme « fluide, auto-attribuée et volontaire » ne rend pas justice aux situations dans lesquelles des groupes désignés comme « ethniques » sont soumis à une ségrégation forcée, à l’exclusion ou à une domination « d’habitude associée à la race » comme c’est le cas par exemple pour les Serbes au Kosovo ou les Albanien·ne·s en Serbie [...] Face aux difficultés posées par cette division stricte entre race et ethnicité, de nombreux·ses auteur·e·s n’opèrent pas de distinction essentielle entre les termes et les utilisent de façon relativement indifférenciée. D’autres considèrent la distinction superflue et insistent alors sur la fluidité conceptuelle entre des termes qui doivent l’un et l’autre être compris comme des constructions sociales, plaidant ainsi pour un dépassement d’une opposition comprise comme trop réductrice [...] Pour A. Wimmer, la race est une forme d’ethnicité où les traits phénotypiques opèrent comme les marqueurs déterminants de l’appartenance, déterminant ainsi des « groupes ethnosomatiques ». Cette conception va toutefois, de l’avis même de A. Wimmer, à l’encontre des définitions communément admises aux États-Unis de la race et de l’ethnicité, pour lesquelles l’ethnicité serait bien plus une sous-division de la race que le contraire . Selon l’auteur, ce découpage a l’avantage de permettre une meilleure comparabilité internationale des travaux s’inscrivant dans le champ des études sur la race et l’ethnicité, en déconstruisant son indexation sur le sens commun états-unien. Si la proposition formalisée par A. Wimmer est à plusieurs égards séduisante, elle ne répond qu’en partie au double problème identifié plus haut. En effet, elle maintient une définition de l’ethnicité centrée sur l’auto-identification, sous laquelle sa propre définition de la race comme « ethnosomatique » peine à être subsumée. Surtout, elle reconduit la ligne de partage entre biologique et culturel, transformant simplement cette division en subdivision. »
If you want to play personal beliefs you can even trip yourself up. Because nowadays people who use these genetic tests as a subjective relationship to their ethnicity are an object of social study.
I therefore think that the question is poorly posed, rather than knowing if we necessarily fall into the field of ethnology, we should define in which field/section the genetic data have their place ? In other words, if you separate them from the study of the population and ethnic groups in Algeria, where will you put them?
This is getting tedious. This wall of text only repeats the same points you made before, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of sources agree that ethnicity is a social construct. @Kovcszaln6 has already pointed out that the definition of ethnicity is outside the scope of this dispute. I think it’s about time we move on from this. Skitash (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Monsieur Patillo You could include them under a new genetics subheading underneath Algeria#Demographics, ensuring that all significant viewpoints regarding Algeria’s genetic makeup are given appropriate weight. However, they certainly do not belong in Algeria#Ethnic groups or the ethnic groups parameter in the infobox. I hope this is a common ground we can agree on.
@Potymkin No administrators have intervened and no final decision was made; that was just another editor suggesting that we revise the lead (and not delete anything), and they seem to be unaware that there is a WP:DRN discussion regarding this. The infobox should stay as it is until we conclude the discussion here per WP:STATUSQUO. As for your claim that "the entire population is Ethnically north african berber", that is factually incorrect. How many times must we reiterate the fact that ethnicity is a social construct based on identity? All the sources provided here correctly make use of the words "ethnically" and "ethnic groups" and agree on an overall ethnic range of 75–85% Arab and 15–25% Berber. The sources definitely don't say what you claimed they say. Skitash (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Algeria)
Thank you for the responses. I'm not entirely sure what Potymkin meant here; if you no longer want to participate in this discussion that's fine.
How many times must we reiterate the fact that ethnicity is a social construct based on identity? : As long as these kinds of unfounded assertions are brandished as law. “Our ancestors the Gauls” is a social construction and a widely shared discourse, particularly at certain times, that makes it no ethnic reality in France, or in its colonies.
As the source Dmoh Bacha says that it is a look and an "ethnic ancestry" I do not think that the genetic data can be purely and simply removed from the ethnic section. This would mean that you with your definition "correct" the sources. This is not the role of a Wikipedian. In the infobox, what information to put etc... that's another problem, actually.
what to do with the ubiquitous mention that Arabs are Arabized Amazigh and not nationals of the Arabian Peninsula. This major fact is passed over in silence in all your writings.
Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
What bothers me is wanting to “shut up shop” on ethnology studies by saying that this or that discipline has nothing to do with it. I think we are overstepping our role in such assertions. Especially since social constructivism is a theory that is not shared by all specialists. In reality the constructivism that they want us to endorse is the political discourse of Napoleon III, and Ben Bella, of an entirely Arab Algeria without any form of objectivity (cultural: culinary dishes, clothing, etc.), historical (large arabisation of amazigh people) or biological ( study by objective data of the population...). We are not moving towards a neutral compilation of sources on Algeria, its people, its ethnic groups but towards the sacralization of the old state lie, which is thus engraved in stone because it is an internal « feeling » by some of those administered. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
"As long as these kinds of unfounded assertions are brandished as law." This is a solid fact.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Even Kovcszaln6 has said that ethnicity is based on self-identification, not genetics, and that this is beyond the scope of this dispute. I'm astonished that you're not familiar with the concept of ethnicity, and at this point, you're just WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. "Our ancestors the Gauls" We're discussing ethnicity, not ancestry. I'm not sure why you're bringing this up.
"I do not think that the genetic data can be purely and simply removed from the ethnic section." Yes it can, and it's supposed to be. Take a look at other Wikipedia articles on countries. None of them intertwine ethnicity and genetics. They either separate them into different sections or omit genetics entirely (because of how unimportant it is nowadays).
"what to do with the ubiquitous mention that Arabs are Arabized Amazigh and not nationals of the Arabian Peninsula." Arabs are Arabs by virtue of identity, language, and culture. They identify as Arabs. Why insist on labeling them as "Arabized Berbers" when many could be of different origins? Berbers aren't the only people that exist in Algeria. Skitash (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Why insist on calling them “Arabized Berbers” when many could be of different origins?
Because the sources tell us that they are of Arabized Berber origin... quite simply. Hiding it is pov-pushing. Typical phrases like “an Arab is an Arab” are misleading. An « Arab » does not have the same reality in Arabia, Syria or the Maghreb, especially after the connotation of political pan-Arabism. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Whatever you're saying makes no sense because the vast majority of sources say the following:
FT World Desk Reference 2005"Arab 75%, Berber 24%, European and Jewish 1%. The population is predominantly Arab, under 30 years of age and urban; some 24% are Berber. More than 85% speak Arabic and 99% are Sunni Muslim"
Britannica: Algeria: "More than three-fourths of the country is ethnically Arab".
Algeria: History & Background: "The combined Arab-Berber people comprise more than 99 percent of the population (Arabs approximately 80 percent; Berbers 20 percent), with Europeans less than one percent".
Algeria Ethnic Groups"Partly due to the strong association between Islam and Arab identity, there is a fair amount of social pressure in Algeria to identify with Arab ancestry. In fact, roughly 85% of the nation identifies much more strongly with their Arab heritage than their Berber heritage."
CIA World Factbook"only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population."
Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East"Algerian Arabs constitute 80 percent of the population, the remaining group being mainly BERBER (primarily the Kabyles living in Kabylie and the Chaouias of the Awras mountains)."
Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East"Berbers constitute roughly 20% of Algeria's population of 39 million. Two-thirds of them (more than 5 million) are Kabyles, originating in the mountainous Kabylie region between Algiers and Constantine, whose dialect is Taqbaylit."
It's evident that most sources unanimously and correctly use the term ethnically to describe Algeria as being composed of 75–85% Arab and 15–25% Berber. Skitash (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
As long as you cherry-pick and divert sources, you won't find solutions. I have already corrected several diversion of sources above (ex: Britanica, CIA Factbook [for which you persist in ignoring the central information of 99% Arab-Amazigh]), I am not going to do it again every day.
We can also add even more sources in the sense of sources which give 99% Arab-Amazigh (ex : Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, ''Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity,''' which means''' that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa.''. This information which is in several sources you refuse it for ideological reasons.
In addition, it will be necessary to identify quality and reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE / WP:CS). I think it will be the role of moderation to define the scope and quality of the sources to be used to avoid the phenomenon of infinite cherry-picking. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1. There is no cherrypicking here; this is just what the vast majority of sources state. Ethnically, Algeria is 75–85% Arab and 15–25% Berber, and that's a fact. I couldn't possibly find any sources implying that more than 25% of the population identifies as ethnically Berber or less than 75% identify as ethnically Arab.
1) This is false because you maintain the confusion between minority groups and ethnic appreciation. When the latter is not formulated your source cannot be retained, much less to deduce that the rest is necessarily composed of Arabs.
For example: Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, 2013 explains: Minority Population: Berbers 7 million, Sahrawi 120,000 Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber (99%) Europeans (less than 1%).
So in the following sources you extrapolate ethnic configurations from minority or linguistic groups : 1) Routledge Handbook of Minorities in the Middle East 2)Extremisms in Africa Volume 2 - Google Livres 3)Algerian Languages in Education: Conflicts and Reconciliation
The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East source cannot be consulted for detailed notes and as you do not have to reliably reproduce the nuances in several sources, a simple truncated quotation cannot be taken into account.
We also have many sources which are quite poor in value: 1 )Reference World Atlas: Everything You Need to Know About Our Planet Today, 2)Changing Female Literacy Practices in Algeria 3)FT World Desk Reference 2005 .
These are general works that are neither focused on the subject nor provide an academic point of view.
2) Please do not use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia: [WP:OTHERCONTENT], but base your analyzes on sources.
Oxford Business Group, The Repport, p.10, Arround 99% of population is Arab-Berber ethnicity, which means that nearly all of the citizenry is descended from Berber or Amazigh populations – the indigenous pre-Islamic peoples of North Africa.
Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1% note: although almost all Algerians are Amazigh in origin and not Arab, only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population
Pierre Caravano, Algérie, Le grand malentendu : «Les Omeyyades ne se contentent pas de dominer les autochtones, ils viennent pour répendre la parole du prophète Mahomet. Ils vont se mêler à la population et creer en quelques dizaines d'années une nouvelle ethnie arabo-berbère. »
Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, «More than 70% of North Africains of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya.».
We note that in academic sources the Arab-Berber concept and ethnicity is widely present. This is something other than Atlases for adolescents, or popularization and tourist guides: these types of sources must be excluded.
Unfortunately, this conversation is not going anywhere since you seem unwilling to accept the actual definition of ethnicity in spite of what the vast majority of reliable sources say. You're also insisting that we use the term "Arab-Berber" despite the consensus among editors to redirect the article. Since you're not open to reaching an agreement or accepting a compromise, it appears that we'll have to retain the version of the article as it was prior to this discussion per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Skitash (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
You want to use a closed chat that only validates your pov-pushing. We always bring you more sources which prove that your presuppositions are erroneous but you fall back on them with the principle of not changing anything. Your status quo method is also wrong, you have allowed yourself to change the article several times. Right that you visibly deny to other contributors (WP:OWN). You even despise your interlocutors to the point that you add modifications claiming a consensus, with contested sources.
Moreover, the old version is not the one which goes in the direction of the diversion that you introduced. Since the end of 2022 you have imposed your source diversionat wear and no intermittent editing wars while the old version was faithful to the source 99% / 1%. Since then there has been an editing conflict almost every 3 months on this infobox. The status quo assumes a reliable and verifiable version and not imposed by force.
That's fine, we can revert to the 85% Arab, 15% Berber version that was in place before this discussion if that's what you'd prefer. However, your understanding of the status quo, like your concept of ethnicity, is incorrect. We don't roll back several hundred edits to a revision in 2022.
@Kovcszaln6 Unfortunately, this user is only casting aspersions and making personal attacks in violation of DRN Rule D, while refusing to reach a compromise despite the myriad of sources that were provided here. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. Thank you for your time. Skitash (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1. Biological and Genetic Basis of Ethnicity
Skitash's assertion that ethnicity is purely a matter of self-identification without any biological or genetic basis is not supported by the majority of scholarly research. Ethnicity is a complex concept that indeed involves a combination of cultural, linguistic, and self-identification factors; however, it is also rooted in shared ancestry and genetic markers. As noted by scholars in the field of population genetics, certain ethnic groups can be distinguished by common genetic traits, which are passed down through generations and often correlate with geographical and historical factors. For instance, the study by Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994) highlights how genetic clusters correspond to known ethnic groups, reflecting shared ancestry and genetic heritage. Therefore, while self-identification plays a significant role in the conception of ethnicity, it cannot entirely disregard the biological and genetic components that contribute to the formation of ethnic groups .
2. Misinterpretation of CIA Factbook Data
Regarding Skitash's interpretation of the CIA World Factbook's data on the ethnic composition of Algeria, his claim that "Arab-Amazigh" as a concept is meaningless is factually incorrect and not supported by reliable sources. The CIA Factbook states that Algeria's population is composed of "99% Arab-Berber" and "1% others." This classification acknowledges the significant ethnic overlap and cultural blending between Arabs and Berbers (Amazigh) in Algeria, reflecting the historical and social realities of the region. The term "Arab-Amazigh" is widely accepted in both academic and governmental contexts to describe the ethnic composition of North African populations, where intermarriage and cultural assimilation over centuries have led to a shared identity that encompasses both Arab and Amazigh heritage. Misrepresenting this classification by suggesting an arbitrary percentage like "85% Arab" without credible sources undermines the integrity of the information presented and violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
In summary, Skitash's positions are not aligned with the scholarly consensus on ethnicity or the reliable interpretation of CIA Factbook data. It is crucial to adhere to verifiable and high-quality sources when discussing such topics on Wikipedia to ensure that information is accurate and well-supported by evidence.Potymkin (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1. "Skitash's assertion that ethnicity is purely a matter of self-identification without any biological or genetic basis is not supported by the majority of scholarly research" It's funny how you're still going on about this when Kovcszaln6 said this is beyond the scope of this discussion, but here are several sources which disprove your claim anyways: [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] + ethnicity.
Alright, so there is still misunderstandings about ethnicity. While there may be correlation between genetics and self-identification, it is still based on how the people identify themselves. Please do not continue arguing about this.
Also, please try to minimize back-and-forth discussion; only start and participate in it if it's actually useful. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Seventh statement by editors (Algeria)
For my part, I have another proposal. As the debate on the ethnic definition is beyond us, I propose to put it aside. However, information which speaks of ethnic ancestry on the basis of haplogroup studies must be integrated into the Ethnic groups section and not another section because in the articles that I have seen none separates section for genetic/biologic data. The debate of what to include in the infobox is something else entirely at this point.
On the other hand, it would be beneficial if Skitach refrained from modifying the infobox during our discussion while affirming the status quo. Or does he have more rights than the other contributors?
for his infobox proposal it is a misappropriation of the source and it is absolutely out of the question to have in the infobox anything other than what is marked in black and white in a source (stop with unpublished summaries). He is so aware of this that he unduly changed the sources to prove his point.
I therefore propose, for infobox, to return to the source 99% Arab-Berber 1% other and explain in a note what the feelings of one or the other are with contradictory figures. This is also the rather clever method used by the CIA Factbook source. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
What part of "Please do not continue arguing about this" do you not understand? Genetics has no place in Algeria#Ethnic groups or the infobox. In fact, I couldn't find a single article that intertwines ethnicity and genetics in the way you are trying to do. Take a look at Iran#Ethnic groups, China#Ethnic groups, or Sudan#Ethnic groups. They all have sections on ethnic groups but not a single one of them discusses genetics at all. All you're trying to do here is push that WP:UNDUE source of yours in spite of the myriad of reliable sources that provide accurate ethnic breakdowns. Skitash (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kovcszaln6 Although Madagascar is the only featured article in that list that incorporates genetics into its ethnic group section, it's important to note that none of those articles use genetic data in the infobox as Monsieur Patillo insists we should. Instead, they present ethnic percentages based purely on identity. I am willing to include genetic data at the end of Algeria#Ethnic groups, provided it is done neutrally and represents all significant viewpoints on Algeria’s genetic makeup fairly, in the condition that @Monsieur Patillo agrees to leave the infobox as it is with the reliably sourced 75–85% Arab/15–25% Berber percentage range.
@Potymkin appears to be reiterating the exact same nonsensical points revolving around the definition of ethnicity and the CIA World Factbook source, and the claims they're making such as "The claim that "85% of Algerians are Arab" is not supported by reliable sources" only suggest that they haven't read the comments or the sources that were provided in this discussion. They continue to treat the CIA World Factbook as the sole source that exists regarding Algeria's ethnic makeup, despite being told ad nauseam why "99% Arab-Berber" is not being used in the article. Skitash (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim that "85% of Algerians are Arab" is not supported by reliable sources. According to the official website of the U.S. Embassy in Algiers, Algeria's population is predominantly of Arab-Berber (Tamazigh) origin, comprising 99% of the population. The website states: "Algeria is an ethnically diverse country, with a majority of its population (99%) being of arab-a mazigh(berber) origin. The Arab identity, which many Algerians associate with, is more of a cultural and linguistic identity than a strictly ethnic one."[1]
This information directly contradicts the assertion that 85% of Algerians are Arab. The Arab identity in Algeria is more accurately described as a cultural and linguistic identity rather than an ethnic one. Therefore, it is essential to adhere to reliable sources when discussing the ethnic composition of Algeria.
you see @Kovcszaln6 ,The difference between the sources Skitash offers and what we have with CIA factbook is that source is official, belonging to the US embassy in Algiers, certified and approved by the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria's government as a factual source for the maintenance of diplomatic ties, the information sheet of the country profile is also approved by algeria and is considered fact. here the only 2 ethnicities mentioned are 99% Amazigh-Berber and 1% other, there is no mention of 85% arab anywhere, it is No original research by user Skitash. Potymkin (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/algeria/33675.htm
The question is: are you guys fine with Skitash's suggestion? You don't have to 100% love it; can you live with it? If both of you could answer yes, then we reached consensus. Otherwise, I guess we could work on a formal RfC. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
This seems like a much better solution - avoiding the whole issue in the lead and leaving discussion of disputed details to the body where it belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Disagree with Skitach. I would like to point out that I did not insist on putting the getics in the infobox, but refused a separate section (like the Madagascar article which was cited). It is more of a transaction than a real encyclopedic work. It confirms the old unpublished synthesis in another form (with WP:UNDUE and against WP:NOV)
Almost Agree with Nikkimaria because at least it's neutral while you search for a wording in the section and see later if a consensus emerges for the infobox. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
My detailed explanations: I think that the readings to know if 85% of the population is Arab should be developed in the body of the article.This is not information that is included in all sources. The quality of the sources cited to multiply occurrences (general, imprecise work) is also problematic.
1) We are on a sensitive NPOV point: what is an Arab as an ethnic group in Algeria, Arabized Berbers? Arabs who have no other form of identity belonging?
2) There is also a diversity of opinions and readings on the subject (example: Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, "In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin"). So to have a restitution of the range of information, NPOV-compatible the details must be addressed in section. The infobox must ultimately remain fairly neutral in the detail itself (by addressing the notion of Arab-Berber, then by explaining the real or supposed divisions of this large group on section). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate Nikkimaria's attempt to resolve the edit conflict, I still believe that we should maintain the status quo and retain the ethnic groups in the infobox. There is no divergence or dispute among reliable sources regarding ethnic identity. They all seem to agree on a 75–85% Arab / 15–25% Berber range. The only issue here is Monsieur Patillo's insistence to impose genetic data in the infobox, which is not the standard practice in any country-related Wikipedia article. Skitash (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The only issue here is Monsieur Patillo's insistence to impose genetic data in the infobox This point is specifically false (see my comment just above). Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Algeria)
If I'm correct, we agreed that the body of the article will contain both sources, and the only issue remaining is what should be included in the infobox. There are three options: 1. The current state: 75–85% Arabs, 15–24% Berbers, 1% others 2. 99% Amazigh-Berber, 1% other 3. Nothing.
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Yes, I support including both sources in the main body of the article, but for the infobox, I believe we should retain the reliably sourced status quo and leave it as it is. Skitash (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe we should include the 2nd source because it is an officially recognized source by the algerian government for the US embassy in algiers about the Country Profile. Potymkin (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I think @Nikkimaria's suggestion is perfect, we should entirely delete ambiguous information about Algeria in the info box and the rest of the article. Nikkimaria's suggestion is supported by multiple parties in Talk:Algeria#Ethnic groups Algeria, whats more is that in country pages like Germany - Wikipedia or France - Wikipedia or Italy - Wikipedia its not included in country pages that we must define ethnic groups living in those country but for some neo colonial mindset its imperative that it should be included for Algeria - Wikipedia and not even by a version certified by the government such as the US embassy to Algeria country profile but using the 2nd hand sources @Skitash came up with.
The suggestion to delete ambiguous information about Algeria's ethnic groups from the infobox and the rest of the article is entirely reasonable and necessary. Unlike Algeria, countries like Germany, France, and Italy do not include detailed ethnic group breakdowns in their Wikipedia country pages because such distinctions are not required for a general understanding of these nations. Applying the same standard to Algeria is not only consistent but also avoids reinforcing outdated and potentially divisive categorizations.
Moreover, the inclusion of ethnic group data in Algeria's article, especially when based on second-hand sources, is problematic. It can perpetuate inaccuracies and misrepresentations, which is why relying on the most authoritative and neutral sources, such as the US Embassy's country profile, is critical. If these sources do not emphasize ethnic breakdowns, it suggests that such distinctions are either not relevant or not clearly defined.
The insistence on including detailed ethnic information in Algeria's article, while it is not done for European countries, raises concerns about double standards and potentially a neo-colonial mindset. It is imperative to treat Algeria with the same respect and neutrality as any other nation, which includes being cautious about imposing unnecessary and potentially harmful classifications.
In conclusion, deleting the ambiguous and potentially misleading ethnic group information will align the Algeria article with the standard practices applied to other country pages on Wikipedia. It will also ensure that the article remains neutral, accurate, and respectful of the complexities of Algerian identity, free from the imposition of external narratives.Potymkin (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Here are serious academic sources that prove the validity of the concept of Arab-Berber (even used by a minister), and the fact that there is a majority or even that the only ethnic group in Algeria, are Berbers and that the language is Arabic (words of the Algerian intellectual Ibn Badis).
Skitach's version is definitively discredited. We can add to the range of proposals (80% of Amazigh/Berber) according to Matthias Brenzinger or all (according to Ibn Badis) (nothing justifies making proposals only going in the direction of Arabization if we want to be neutral and complete).
* (en) Hsain Ilahiane, Historical Dictionary of the Berbers (Imazighen), Rowman & Littlefield, 27 mars 2017 (ISBN978-1-4422-8182-0, lire en ligne) :
Although Imazighen are unjustly considered a "minority" in North Africa, the area tha Berber speaker inhabit is vast, testifiying to the sheer size and broad spead of the Amazigh population. While official census data on the demographic characteristic and dynamics of Imazighen are sorely lacking, Amazigh scholars and activists claim that perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the North African population remains ethnically Amazigh, although a large segment of this percentage has been significantly Arabized. and has thereby lost its original identity markers.
* Arabisation et bilinguisme, Les premiers pas d’une politique linguistique bilingue en Algérie aux lendemains de l’indépendance, Yasmina Cherrad, p. 385-402 :
À travers le discours officiel se dessine nettement l’idée que, au fond définir sa langue et ses fonctions, c’est retrouver son être dans un pays où la colonisation a joué sur l’existence des langues locales pour créer des scissions intestines. Luttant contre la division créée par le pouvoir colonial, le discours politique de l’Algérie indépendante veut montrer que le pays n’est pas sur le plan ethnique « une juxtaposition d’arabes et de berbères, mais un mélange arabo-berbère qui, embrassant la même foi et adhérant au même système de valeurs est animé par l’amour de la même terre. » (Taleb el Ibrahimi, 1973, p. 131). (also cited in : Gérard Chaliand, Juliette Minces , L'Algérie indépendante : Bilan d'une révolution nationale, 1972, p.159
À ce problème s’ajoute celui de la revendication culturelle berbère. La question est, à vrai dire, d’une rare complexité. Pour plus de clarté, nous tenterons de partir du débat qui a eu lieu autour de la charte nationale, époque où un certain nombre d’orateurs, aussi bien berbérophones qu’arabophones, déplorèrent le fait que l’avant projet ne se soit pas arrêté plus longuement sur les origines berbères du pays. Ils déclarèrent que si le pouvoir voulait continuer l’action des réformistes, il ne fallait pas qu’il s’arrêtât à l’unique phrase du Cheikh Ben Badis « l’Algérie est ma patrie, l’arabe ma langue, l’islam ma religion » mais qu’il prenne également en considération une autre réplique du même penseur religieux dans laquelle il spécifiait : « la personnalité algérienne repose sur un trépied, l’ethnie berbère, la langue arabe, la religion musulmane ».
M. Lacheraf et A. Taleb el Ibrahimi souligneront l’envergure du brassage des populations, et le premier n’hésitera pas à déclarer : Si, sur le plan des dialectes, il y a des arabophones et des berbérophones, nous pouvons dire tranquillement que, par leurs origines et leurs fonds culturels, les Algériens sont des arabo-berbères (M. Lacheraf, Algérie actualité, nos 820 à 821).
Your attacks aim to disqualify a source and an academic who does not suit your point of view.
When Ibn Badis says that the ethnicity of the Algerian people is Berber, he mentions the entire population (which is why he does not give a percentage). unless he too is a Berberist according to you? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Hsain Ilahiane clearly attributes this claim to Berberist activists and scholars, stating "Amazigh scholars and activists claim that perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the North African population remains ethnically Amazigh". This is an WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE claim and obviously not a mainstream view. If you're interested in mainstream perspectives on Algeria's ethnic identity breakdown, please refer to the sources I've provided above. Ibn Badis passed away in 1940 and I don't understand how a quote of his is being used as a source for Algeria's contemporary ethnic breakdown. Skitash (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
He actually quotes activists and schoolar but without saying that it is the monopoly of Berberist information. To know the quality of a source or information, you need to know how it is taken up by the specialist's peers. And this information is well taken up by: Jihad M. Hamdan and Sara Kessar: Language Policy and Planning in Algeria: Case Study of Berber Language Planning, ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 59-68, January 2023. In this academic article, the information is taken up and put into perspective with the work of another eminent specialist, Salem Chaker, director of the Berber Encyclopedia, which is a reference.
It is noted worthy that up to present, no official and accurate census data regarding the Berbers’ demographics are available, yet scholars claim that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers, albeit a large portion of this proportion has been Arabized and has therefore lost their original Berber identity markers (Ilahiane, 2006, p. xxxvi). Following the same line of thought, Chaker (2004) asserts that “the huge majority of current Arabic speakers in the Maghreb are in fact Berbers who were “Arabized” at various times in history.
Where you only see the citation of activism, opportunistically, this opinion is also the work of scholars, and cited by other scholars. Whether the activist world takes up academic elements to develop its discourse is another matter. Your argumentation looks more and more like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Ibn Baddis is not a WP:USEPRIMARY, in fact I am citing an academic article (Arabisation et bilinguisme, de Yasmina Cherrad) that is based on a quote from Ibn Badis among others (that of a minister in particular) and explains the path of identity design in Algeria and explains the path of the conception of identity in Algeria from full Arabization to the assumed Berber identity.
I suggest you read UNDUE yourself: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources..
the quality of your sources (popular book, general atlas, absence of academic or centered publications...), your interpretations and personal calculations (CIA Factbook for example) and the vagueness of the concepts (Arabs) is not correct, even less to impose a motion in the infobox. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Algeria)
It seems like I wasn't clear enough. Would an RfC with the options that I have provided be fine, or do you have suggestions to modify the options? Please just simply reply; do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. If there are no suggestions, I'll start an RfC like this. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Tenth statement by editors (Algeria)
I added sources to support another motion to add: « 80-90% Berbers » .... The sources are in the drop-down box, should I republish them here below? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
There is only one (Berberist and non-neutral) source that makes such a claim. That is clearly WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Moreover, the source doesn't even mention Arabs or other ethnic groups at all. Skitash (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, «More than 70% of North Africains of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya.».
The outrageous remarks of Skitach, that the source of an eminent professor is Berberist are not admissible. On the other hand Jihad M. Hamdan and Sara Kessar of the University of Jordan who repeat these remarks and those of Chaker are also Berberists? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I add a source that clearly demonstrates that the ethnic concepts of Arabs vs Berbers are vague in the Maghreb. It therefore supports the thesis of Arab-Amaaigh, of a population mainly of Amazigh origin, or to put nothing. In any case, making us believe that Algerians are Arabs, without any form of nuance is a deception.
Moha Ennaji, Multiculturalism and Democracy in North Africa : Aftermath of the Arab Spring, [26], Taylor & Francis:
The terms "Arabs" and "Berbers” are misleading and not to be understood in an ethnic sense. The first inhabitants of North Africa were Berbers, and when Islam reached the region, it Islamized the population completely, but did not lead to its full Arabization. Today, it is preferable to refer to the populations in the region as Berberophone and Arabophone. In Morocco and Algeria, there is a linguistic issue, not a racial one, particularly the problematic of the integration of the Amazigh language in all walks of public life. Historically, many Berbers areas became completly arabized, and conversely many Arab zone were Berberized. Thus, the so called "Arabs" in Morocco and Algeria consist mainly of Arabized Berbers. In both countries, almorst everybody's origin is Berber, but only a minority speak Berber, about 40 percent and 15 percent of the total population of Morocco and Algeria, respectively (Chaker 1998:16; Benrabah, this volume).
@Monsieur Patillo:1. You'd like a fourth option, 80-90% Berbers, correct? 2. What is the other 10-20%? 3. What are the sources for this claim? If you have already listed them, please link to that; otherwise, please list them. 4. Do you have any other suggestions to the RfC?
@Potymkin: Do you have any other suggestions to the RfC?
@Skitash:1.These sources support your preferred option, correct? 2. Do you have any other suggestions to the RfC?
2.There is no indication (I am not going to do an original work)
3.* Matthias Brenzinger, Language diversity Endagered, p.128, More than 70% of North Africains of Amazigh originis speak no Amazigh languages, but Arabic languages only. In Morocco and Algerian, about 80% of the citizen are considered to be of Amazigh origin, as are 60% in Tunisia and Libya.
(en) Hsain Ilahiane, Historical Dictionary of the Berbers (Imazighen), Rowman & Littlefield, 27 mars 2017 (ISBN 978-1-4422-8182-0, lire en ligne) :
Although Imazighen are unjustly considered a "minority" in North Africa, the area tha Berber speaker inhabit is vast, testifiying to the sheer size and broad spead of the Amazigh population. While official census data on the demographic characteristic and dynamics of Imazighen are sorely lacking, Amazigh scholars and activists claim that perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the North African population remains ethnically Amazigh, although a large segment of this percentage has been significantly Arabized. and has thereby lost its original identity markers.
Language Policy and Planning in Algeria: Case Study of Berber Language Planning, ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 59-68, January 2023.
It is noted worthy that up to present, no official and accurate census data regarding the Berbers’ demographics are available, yet scholars claim that approximately 80 to 90 per cent of the current population of North Africa remains ethnically Berbers, albeit a large portion of this proportion has been Arabized and has therefore lost their original Berber identity markers (Ilahiane, 2006, p. xxxvi). Following the same line of thought, Chaker (2004) asserts that “the huge majority of current Arabic speakers in the Maghreb are in fact Berbers who were “Arabized” at various times in history.
There are sources that do not give a percentage but also affirm that there is an Amazigh ethnic majority (which is something other than the language): “Amazighs in Algeria: an ethnic majority yet a linguistic minority”, by A. DOURARI, University Algiers2, CNPLET/MEN Algeria
4. I request that the restitution of sources be validated before the publication of RfC because some quotes from Skitach are deliberately truncated to mislead the reader. Exemple : CIA World Factbook only a minority identify themselves as primarily Amazigh, about 15% of the total population. dismisses the "Arab-Amazigh 99%, European less than 1%" and he counts this source to support his POV-pushing. If we rig the debate with false quotes, it is likely to bias opinions.
Eleventh statement by Potymkin
Eleventh statement by Skitash
1. Correct.
2. If possible, I would recommend clarifying in the RfC that it is about ethnicity and ethnic identity (as social constructs), rather than deep ancestral origins tracing back millennia, or science and genetics (which may belong in the body of the article but not in the infobox). I've provided all the relevant sources here. Thanks. Skitash (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2024 (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.
Closed as premature. The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editor or editors. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page may be useful, but is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, which is required for various reasons, including that third-party editors may be ready to comment. Resume discussion on the article talk page at Talk:Heterodox Academy. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
I added a quotation from a New York Times article by Thomas Friedman to the entry, and an editor deleted the passage. I talked about it on my talk page, but another editor (Hipal) provided a puzzling rationale for the deletion; in the end, they simply declared by fiat that it was a "poor ref.," without further explanation. As an historical note, the editor (Hipal) does not appear to let any opinions about Heterodox Academy onto the Wikipedia page except that of Chris Quintana and Zack Beauchamp, whose opinion remains (literally and figuratively) the final word on the matter.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[27]
--Please see the most recent discussion toward the bottom.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I see no reason why the New York Times passage should have been deleted. It should be restored.
If I am mistaken and the the New York Times passage is indeed improper for the Wikipedia page, then the Beauchamp-Quintana opinion should be deleted, as it is strictly analogous to Friedman's opinion from the New York Times.
Heterodox Academy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Closed as failed at the start. There are several problems, beginning with failure to agree on a set of ground rules for moderated discussion. (By the way, Cambial Yellowing's criticism of the wording of the usual rules was correct. The editors should not be asked not to make any reports to a conduct forum, but to understand that any reports to a conduct forum will end the moderated discussion. That is, an editor has the right to withdraw from moderated discussion by claiming foul.) Also, it seems that the filing editor expects the moderator to have a greater degree of authority than is provided in Wikipedia. The moderator can offer an opinion as to whether a paragraph is synthesis amounting to original research, but the moderator cannot make an authoritative ruling to that effect. As I tried to explain, the final authority is that of the community, which can be established by a Request for Comments. Moderated discussion is not feasible and is not about to be feasible. The editors are advised to resume discussion on the article talk page. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Both editors have been notified that this is a contentious topic, and a report at Arbitration Enforcement usually has less drama than a report at WP:ANI. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
the User:Kof2102966 argued that the editor combines the entry that
“United States and state-sponsored terrorism in syria”
and
“Another study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIL forces", including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.”
to imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL, But the source did not advocate that the US provided weapons to ISIL.According to the Wikipedia guideline, This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.The text should be deleted.
The User:Cambial Yellowing disagree about that, he\she argued the text that the User:Kof2102966 proposed removing in no way resembles the examples of synthesis that the User:Kof2102966 quote from the NOR policy.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Making a judgment as to whether the editorial synthesis of published material that they are arguing is original research or not, whether the editorial synthesis of published material is against the policy or not.
Summary of dispute by Cambial Yellowing
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kof 2102966 claims but editor looked upon them as evidence of the US supporting ISIL in this Wikipedia entry.[29] Which editor they do not specify, presumably themself. (?) They write that the quotes serve to imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL.
Contrary to this claim, as can be seen above, the quotes include that these were diversions, and there is no implication otherwise. in the most rapid case [of] diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State (emphasis added).
Kof2102966's only proposed solution is to delete the entire paragraph. It's been suggested to Kof2102966 that they propose a different contextualisation to address their issue with the text. In response they made a personal attack and posted here. Cambial — foliar❧13:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
The problem is not who is the editor, the problem is whether combining the entry that “United States and state-sponsored terrorism in syria” and
“Another study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIL forces", including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.”
will imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL or not. By the way, the quotes here did not mention any “these weapon were diversions”.We are talking about whether combining them will imply that the US provided weapons to ISIL or not, don't them discussed separately or change the subject.And talking about the "personal attack", if you think the word "That is too arrogant" is personal attack,then why don't you think charging me with"deleting reliably-sourced content with a spurious attempted justification" is not a "personal attack"? Kof2102966 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
United States and state-sponsored terrorism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (US-sponsored terrorism)
The filing editor forgot to notify the other editor. However, the other editor has replied, so notification can be waived, because they already know about this dispute request. I am ready to serve as the moderator if the editors both want moderated discussion. If there is discussion, it will be conducted under DRN Rule D. Please read DRN Rule D. This discussion involves American politics, which are a contentious topic, so that disruptive editing is subject to the contentious topics procedure.
Do you both agree to moderated discussion, and to comply with the ground rules, and to acknowledge that the contentious topics rules are in effect? If so, will each editor please state concisely what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave unchanged that the other editor wants to change? The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article, and we are discussing how to improve the article, so that that will be the focus of this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I request to delete the text that
“Another study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels "significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to ISIL forces", including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, "anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.” is under the entry that “United States and state-sponsored terrorism in syria” Kof2102966 (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Robert, I agree to most of Rule D, the only exceptions being points 3. and 10. I'll not be bound not to report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards. If Kof2102966 chooses to ignore WP:5P4 and engage in further personal attacks, I'll be reporting it in the normal way; similarly with inappropriate edits. This is in no way forum shopping, because it is Kof2102966 that has chosen to come to this particular venue, not me. I would think I would be able to meet point 10, but IRL commitments may prevent this. We are only here because Kof2102966 has refused to discuss or propose any solution other than deleting the paragraph they disagree with. Cambial — foliar❧00:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not up to you to decide whether my word is a personal attack or not, that's administrators' duty. You'd better watch your tongue, because if the administrator judges that the charges of "personal attack" were not proven, according to Casting aspersions, you will become the guy who started the personal attack, and your editing of my message will be vandalism. Now focus on the content we were discussing. Kof2102966 (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Statement 0.5 by possible moderator (US-sponsored terrorism)
I have written revised DRN Rule D1, and made two changes. First, I infer that what Cambial Yellowing is saying about D.3 is that they will not give their word that they will not report disruptive editing. I did not intend the rule to be an advance commitment not to report disruptive editing, but a notice that any such report will end the mediation. I have revised rule D.3 so that it clarifies that point, and I will consider changing all of the DRN Rules to clarify that you are not promising not to make a report to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, but I am stating that any such report will end the mediation. Is that satisfactory? Also, I have changed D.10 to say that you should try to respond within 48 hours, and that you should notify the moderator if you know that you will be busy. User:Cambial Yellowing - If you agree, please state what article content you wish to change that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (US-sponsored terrorism)
Why doesn't he realize he is the first one who've broken the rule (point 4.1 and 4.2) which he agreed?
If he resisted focusing on the context, just accusing me of misbehaviour without evidence, I request the moderator to warn him.
Let me expound my reason, no matter how to edit this text, when it is combined with “United States and state-sponsored terrorism in Syria”, it implies that the US provided weapons to ISIL, even if pointing out the weapon is transferred to ISIL, it still can implies that the US provided weapons to ISIL through the anti-Assad Syrian rebels. Deleting it is the only way. If it did not imply anything, this context should be unrelated to the entry of “United States and state-sponsored terrorism in Syria”, the irrelevant context should be remove.
Kof2102966 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by possible moderator (US-sponsored terrorism)
Do you, both of you, want moderated discussion about article content, to see if we can resolve the content issue without discussing conduct, or do you want to go to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement first? I do not intend to examine times to determine whether any violations of the rules occurred before or after you agreed to the rules, if you both want to address the content issue by moderated discussion. Either agree (again, if appropriate) to DRN Rule D1 and follow it beginning now, and we will discuss content, or continue to argue about who did what first, in which case the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement may or may not examine the timestamps. I recommend agreeing to the rules going forward, because that will avoid the likelihood of topic-bans, but, if so, you must agree to the rules again, just so that we don't deal with the past.
Second statements by editors (US-sponsored terrorism)
I'm suspending my agreement until we can first establish whether this is even worth pursuing. You ask if I want moderated discussion. Not particularly: we're here at Kof2102966's request, not mine. I'm fine with discussing changes at article talk. I don't believe this is necessarily the most appropriate process, for the following reason.
In my view, if Kof2102966 is willing to discuss changes to the text that might alleviate whatever they perceive as a problem, we can have that discussion. But as Kof2102966 reiterates for a fourth time in their most recent comment above, the only possible outcome for them is their own: "Deleting it is the only way." Kof2102966 expressly asks for a ruling in their original post, requesting "a judgment" on their charge of synthesis. They apparently hope for a "ruling" from this process that will enable them to restore their original edit. But that's not the purpose of moderated discussion.
If Kof2102966 can agree to discuss other potential changes to the text, we can have a discussion about such changes. If they would prefer to do so in a moderated discussion here, I'm happy to agree to the amended rules in Robert McClenon's essay. But if the discussion is to be "we must delete it" and anything else is out of the question, I fear this process will be unproductive at best. Is Kof2102966 willing to discuss other outcomes?
A note to moderator: I've done nothing even remotely close to something that might warrant a topic ban (nor even discussion at ANI), so I don't appreciate veiled threats, however well-intentioned, that you cannot personally implement anyway. Cambial — foliar❧21:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by possible moderator (US-sponsored terrorism)
If the only content issue is the deletion of a paragraph, then a Request for Comments is probably in order, rather than moderated discussion.
What I should have said about a filing with a conduct forum, and will now say, is that an editor should read the boomerang essay before filing with WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. If you haven't edited disruptively, filing with a conduct forum won't result in sanctions against you. I will still advise editors in general not to file a conduct report if there are any content-oriented approaches available.
Are there any other content issues than deletion of a paragraph? If not, should I prepare a neutrally worded RFC concerning the deletion of the paragraph, rather than conducting moderated discussion?
Moderated discussion is voluntary. We will only have moderated discussion if both editors want moderated discussion. Otherwise either talk page discussion or an RFC are options.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (US-sponsored terrorism)
Hold on a second, I have some questions to ask moderator. What I want is to find someone authoritative enough to judge whether a conclusion is synthesis amounting to original research. If so, I'll ask for deleting it. If not, leave it be. You mean we cannot achieve it here? Kof2102966 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. If authority and hierarchy is what you came to Wikipedia looking for, this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I've not agreed to those rules: I specifically disengaged from them. You chose this venue. The reality is that the authority figure you want to make a ruling to enable you to redo your edit does not exist on Wikipedia. And no, you don't get to tell other editors to be quiet. Cambial — foliar❧15:35, 27 August 2024 (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.
Closed as pending in another forum. The filing editor filed a report at WP:ANI, which was still open at the time of the filing of this request. We do not deal with disputes that are also pending in another forum. If you are requesting moderated discussion of a content dispute, first wait for the matter at WP:ANI to be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
I am asking for an neutral abitrator to calmdown and avoid confusion about recent history of the school, in special the persecution suffered by the school due its korean roots, we someone that can hear both sides and get a consensus about how the school page should look in a way that show the two sides of the history of the school there had someone that he tried to help, but he said that had not much knowledgement about the schooll and the situation, so i decided that would be better to call someone else that could deal with the situation better and even assist that person as well
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
the third party would help in reorganize the school page and avoid endless polemic about the school and the two sides in the korea vs japan situation, polemic topics tend to be very ifllamatory
Summary of dispute by SLIMHANNYA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Closed as apparently declined by the other editor. Moderated discussion is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be used to obtain community consensus. Concerns about sockpuppetry should either be reported to sockpuppet investigations or not mentioned. Expressing such concerns elsewhere is a form of casting aspersions and may be seen as a personal attack. Discuss article content at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
To keep things brief, everything is stated on the talk page. I will no longer discuss this topic with a person that uses multiple accounts (which should be looked into) Zlogicalape (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The issue is his ethnicity, Barbera stated in his autobiography that his parents
and grandmother were Italians and only talked about Sicilian/Italian heritage. Yet the daily telegraph states that his parents were of Lebanese descent. The other 99% of reliable sources say he was a son of Italian/Sicilian immigrants. I thought adding an explanatory note that states what the Daily Telegraph says is more than enough, but user Zlogicalape wants to add that his father was of Lebanese descent to the article. Which I think is pushing a minority view and giving undue weight to a source.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Joseph Barbera discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Closed due to inadequate discussion. Either the discussion has been between the other editor and three unregistered editors with different Internet Service Providers, or between one registered editor and an unregistered editor who accesses Wikipedia from shifting IP addresses. It is difficult to conduct orderly discussion with an editor whose IP address is constantly changing. The unregistered editor (assuming that they are one unregistered editor) is advised to register an account, and resume discussion at the article talk page, using the registered pseudonym or account name. If discussion between two editors on the article talk page is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
Dominika Banevic is a breaking star and Lithuanian national, underaged girl. All the official sources clearly indicate her name as Dominika Banevič (Banevic) (e.g. olympics.org, worlddancesport.org). User Marcelus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marcelus) is intentionally presenting Dominika Banevic as Polish person by indicating her ethnicity (without any source) including translation of her name into Polish, references to Polish related events only, which have no significant value (e.g. information about dancing in Polish School Youth Sports Games in Łomża, but no information about winning European Championship 2023, Undisputed Masters, Outbreak Europe, etc.) and which disclose too much information about underaged person (e.g. which school is attended). As a reason to indicate Polish translation of name Marcelus gives reference to media in polish language, while media is just translating her name to be easier to read for Polish language readers.
I tried to present arguments, byt Marcelus ignored everything, just repeated one illogical argument and closed discussion as well as possibility to edit page.
Please bear in mind that Marcelus is clearly biased. I his "Talk" page he wrises: "Sadly Lithuania limits minority rights, and Polish isn't recognised the same way Lithuanian in Poland is." Lithuania is a democratic country with the rule of law, respecting all rights of national minorities, in this sentence Marcelus clearly indicates being radical nationalist and acts accordingly.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I ask to remove Polish translation of name, ethnicity indication of Domininka Banevic, as these are facts "invented" by Marcelus, not substantiated by any trustworthy source. I as to remove reference to Polish School Youth Sports Games in Łomża, as this fact has no other value as to present Domininka Banevic as Polish.
I ask to warn Marcelus for his abusive nationalistic behaviour.
Thanks and sorry if something is wrong, first time for me to file a request.
Summary of dispute by Marcelus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dominika Banevi%C4%8D discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Closed due to no response. Three days after the other editors were notified, none of them have responded here. One of them has declined, on their talk page, to take part in discussion. The other two are assumed to have declined. Moderated discussion is voluntary. The editors should continue normal discussion at the article talk page. If discussion remains inconclusive, a neutrally worded Request for Comments may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed 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.
It was about origin of Kuči tribe. For the last few years the page states that they are Albanian in origin, without something i think is a good enough source to quote, and they based that info based on language report from 17th century, using their own conclusions. I disagreed with that, and wanted to provide a better source, but couldn't find any that state that the tribe was Albanian in origin. I found one that states that the tribe is mixed in origin, which is based on data known from the time tribe was formed (census data during Ottoman empire shows that the tribe is mixed). I was met with hostility, people keep bringing up haplogroups and language, without ever directly addressing the claim. Closest they got was few english written books that just bundle the tribe together with Albanian tribes or call it Albanian, but none of those address the issue of origin. In the past, when i tried to edit or add sources, i was told that source was not neutral, that it's not reliable, that it's not academic, and now that i have academic, reliable, modern source, they think it's fringe. It's impossible to change anything because they won't leave their nationalistic POV. I say nationalistic POV because they also keep editing out the Kuči name into Albanian variation of Kuçi. They even use that name constantly in the talk page, despite me asking them to use English neutral name of Kuci, i assume as a provocation. I tried to use talk page to talk to them, to discuss with them, but they have contradictory claims sometimes and they refuse to accept any other POV. Also, the only person that has to use talk page is me, because they update the article as they wish, without any consensus whatsoever. If you try to fight back, they will revert until you are risking 3RR, which they will never do as there are few of them. One of them also constantly brings up haplogroups and unproven theories, which is against WP:OR. I would use RfC but i was afraid of interference.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
You can check the sources provided, read the info given in the origins section of the article, and try to open their minds a bit. I don't have any problems stating that the tribe was orthodox or catholic, i don't have anything against Albanians or Serbs, but they keep ignoring their own data, and write based on their POV.
Summary of dispute by Alltan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Maleschreiber
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Krisitor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kuči discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't believe the other side will ever comment on this. They will try to ignore this, as they do not want to get to the consensus, they want their own POV.
Setxkbmap (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.