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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

Shortcuts WP:DRN WP:DR/N This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Danre98 (talk · contribs)
• Xerxes1985 (talk · contribs)
• WikiEditUsername7 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over whether Nastaliq (via {{Nastaliq}}) should be used in Afghanistan infoboxes and leads for the native spelling.

A user posted on WikiProject Afghanistan, asking for help reverting edits adding the native spelling in Nastaliq. A user that has been adding the native spelling in Nastaliq responded. The discussion has been ongoing, but hasn't been very constructive and is not close to a consensus.

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan#Disruptive adding of the Nastaliq writing style

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think a mediator mediating the discussion would lead towards a constructive discussion.

I’ve said everything on the previous discussion linked by Danre98 already. The user is constantly adding the Nastaliq writing style to all Afghanistan related articles, this is not the standard script being used in Afghanistan, it’s rather a calligraphic version used in art, book covers, maybe sometimes newspaper titles or similar things, but not the standard script for text. The same is the case for Iran as well, hence why all Iranian related articles have their native names in a standard Perso-Arabic script written on WP, same is the case for Afghan related articles until this user joined. On the other hand in Pakistan the Nastaliq style is the standard script and hence it’s used on WP for Pakistan related articles as well, the user made clear in the discussion that “this is the exact reason why he’s doing all those edit [wars]”, he believes that “we” as Iranics should reclaim that script since it was a person from Iran who invented it and changing the script on all Afghan related articles to Nastaliq is according to him one method for that. This is just pure POV pushing and his personal preference and WP:OR. A good analogy would be that the standard Perso-Arabic script was invented by a person from what is now Tajikistan (See: Rudaki), does that mean we should remove the Cyrillic script from all Tajikistan related articles and add a perso-arabic one? I’ve warned the user countless of times and tried solving it per talk page discussions, but he never listened and just kept on editing. This needs to be stopped Xerxes1985 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I would like to just outline a couple of important points in summary:

• I have tried to remain calm, cool, and professional throughout the course of our "discussion" on the talk page. Unfortunately, since the jump Xerxes1985 has been the opposite of that. From the beginning Xerxes1985 has been self-admittedly aggressive, rude, unengaging, and unwilling to reach consensus on the talk page. From the beginning all Xerxes1985 has done is threaten to ban me. For what may I ask? I have done nothing but make well sourced edits on pages that desperately needed them.

• The initial reason why Xerxex1985 did not want the script to be used was because it did not "meet the standards of Persian script on WP". I asked for those standards to be shown to me so that I could take a look at them and follow them, but they were not. Danre98 later pointed out on the talk page that in fact "there is no standard about how to include scripts" on WP.

• After we concluded that there was no standard related to the use of Persian/Arabic/Pashto/etc scripts on WP, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the first time and shifted to pointing out that "Iranian" and "Persian" articles in their entirety were not utilizing the script. That is blatantly false. May I ask that the those involved in resolving this dispute check out the page on the Persian alphabet for reference. Please take a look at the infobox on the right hand side. The entire alphabet, letter by letter is written in Nastaliq script. Once you are finished there, go and take a quick look at the pages of Ferdowsi, Hafez, and Omar Khayyam. These are some of the most famous Persians in all of history. Every single item on Ferdowsi's page that is in a non-english language is in Nastaliq. Look at all the pictures on those pages of the manuscripts, books, and poetry. It is all written in Nastaliq.

• Next, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the second time. The discussion was shifted and Xerxes1985 began to claim that I was the first person ever to utilize the script on pages about Afghanistan/Afghans and no one before me had ever used such a script on those pages. Again, this is 100% false and is a blatant lie. I was most definitely not the first person to add Nastaliq script on those pages. There were already plenty of pages utilizing the script before I ever added it anywhere. Go and check out Ahmad Zahir's (possibly the most famous Afghan of all time) page for reference. Before I ever made a single edit there, the Nastaliq script was being used in the infobox on that page and on many more pages.

• I am not trying to "reclaim" anything as Xerxes1985 is claiming. Xerxes1985 is trying to twist my words. There is no POV pushing or WP:OR here. The only reason why I ever mentioned that was because Xerxes1985 tried to break the connection between Nastaliq and the Persian/Pashto speaking world. He falsely claimed that Nastaliq was not used in Afghanistan at all and is only used in the Urdu language and only used in Pakistan. That is when and why I said that Nastaliq was in fact Persian in origin and it can, should, and has be used on pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghan.

• Lastly, but also most importantly, unlike Xerxes1985, I actually tried to find a middle ground and reach a consensus. I proposed that in the lead section we use the default script and in the infobox we use the Nastaliq script. For example, the native language spelling of the city of Kabul in the lead section would be written as کابل and then in the infobox it would be written as کابل. Please note that both of these are identical in meaning, identical in spelling, and identical in language. Unfortunately, the middle ground was not accepted and no consensus was reached. No counter was even given. It was Xerxes1985's way or the highway.

Bottom Line: I want to stress what we are actually "disputing" here. This is a dispute over font... Using کابل vs کابل DOES NOT change the meaning of the word. It is the same language... The same spelling... The same meaning... It is just a slightly different font... Of all the things that the dispute resolvers could be doing to benefit WP, they are instead here trying to resolve this dispute over font... Not even the font of an entire page... Just the font for 3-4 words per page on some articles about Afghans and Afghanistan.

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrAgentSochi I will respond to that in a bit, but can you PLEASE tell the user to STOP removing MY comment and edits on this page ? Regardless of if my comment is placed right or wrong, he is NOT allowed to move MY comment on a talk anywhere else or delete it, this is completely against the WP rules. Xerxes1985 (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrAgentSochi Hi! I was not sure if we were supposed to proceed with the discussion here or on the WikiProject Afghanistan page. I have added my latest comments on the WikiProject Afghanistan page. If you'd like me to continue here instead, please let me know and I copy my comments over. Thanks! WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will explore the option of acting as a moderator, to see whether this dispute is one that can be dealt with here. It appears that this is not about the content of an article, but about a style or font for representing the local forms of names. Please read the rules that will be in effect if I am conducting moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Some of the statements above are long and confrontational. If this dispute spans multiple articles, this discussion may go into whether the Manual of Style should address an issue, so be ready to discuss the Manual of Style, but not to discuss the editors. Now: Will each editor please tell me, in one paragraph, what the issue is. What do you want changed or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First Statement by WikiEditUsername7: Thank you Robert McClenon. I will try to keep this short and to the point. What do I want? What I want is for the editors of pages regarding Afghans/Afghanistan to have the ability to choose which font/script they would like to utilize when using native language spelling. This in fact, has always been the norm, which you can clearly see by looking at the many pages I shared as examples previously. When it comes to foreign language spelling on these pages, there is no standard. Some of the pages exclusively use the Naskh script (as in Kabul = کابل‎), some pages exclusively use the Nastaliq script (where Kabul = {{nq|کابل‎}}), and some pages use both. As you can see, both of these renderings are the exact same thing. They are in the same language, they use the same letters, they are spelled exactly the same, and they convey the exact same meaning (in this case, it is just "Kabul" written in Dari/Pashto). All of a sudden, we have a demand to exclusively move to using one over the other, and on top of that, for all intents and purposes, we have a call for a total ban on the use of Nastaliq on pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghans (and on pages regarding Persians/Iran for that matter) based on the false claim that Nastaliq is not used in the region. This demand does not make sense, as both Naskh and Nastaliq are used commonly throughout the region. Imagine if someone said that Times New Roman is the standard font for the English language in print and that Calibri (or any other font for that matter) should be banned from ever being used on any printed material in the English language. That is the equivalent of what we are discussing and disputing here. I had previously consulted the Manual of Style that was shared by the moderator, and I did not see where using Nastaliq over Naskh or vice versa was in violation of the best practices outlined in the manual. However, I could be wrong and I defer to the moderator on this issue. From my perspective, I felt that MOS:FOREIGNITALIC specifically provided the best guidance and clarification as it pertains to this issue that we are disputing over now. I don't see how using Nastaliq over Naskh or vice versa violates these best practices. In the edits I have been making, I have been following the best practices outlined below, i.e. placing the term in parentheses and not italicizing or bolding the non-Latin scripts.

MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "If there is a reason to include a term in a non-Latin script, it can be placed in parentheses. Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page. However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek and Cyrillic); do not apply italic markup to scripts that do not (including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean)."

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: @Danre98: How do we proceed if all users involved have not responded within the designated 48 hour window as per the rules?

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Danre98: The issue is whether Nastaliq, a writing style style/font, should be used to represent the native (or local) spelling of places in Afghanistan. I would want things to stay the same- I don't care much and I don't see a compelling case for either after checking the MOS and Nastaliq sources. However, I could have missed something. I think the suggestion to let the person who adds the native spelling choose the script might work. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to state my understanding of what the issues are, and am asking whether you (the parties) agree. It appears that the issue is whether the Nastaliq script, which is a calligraphic script or font for writing the Arabic alphabet, can be used for the native-language renditions of names. It appears that two editors have made statements saying that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted. It appears that one editor is opposed to the use of Nastaliq, but has not made a statement.

There are at least three possible ways forward. The first is to close this discussion with a conclusion that we agree that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted. That might not do anything, because a conclusion at DRN is not binding on anyone. The second is to use a Request for Comments somewhere, probably in the MOS, to say whether the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted. The third is to use a Request for Comments at each article where its use is challenged.

Each editor is asked either to agree or to disagree with my summary of the issue. Each editor is asked to make a concise additional statement. By the way, when I say to be concise, I mean to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Statement by WikiEditUsername7:

• Agree or disagree with moderators summary of the issue: I agree. I would make one minor edit to your summary and remove "which is a calligraphic script". The other option is the Naskh script which is also a calligraphic script/font. So in that regard, both Nastaliq and Naskh are the same and there is no need to distinguish one as calligraphic.
• How to proceed: I prefer option 1 (close this discussion with a conclusion that we agree that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted). In my humble opinion, this is a non-issue that should never have reached this level of dispute resolution to begin with. If we were debating the use of a non-native language and/or non-native script (like Chinese characters, for example), then there would be a need for a more binding resolution.
• Comments on second option: I do not see a need to use a request for comment because to me, the guidance for use of foreign language is already clear per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC (if you use foreign language in the article, make sure it is in parentheses and make sure you do not use bold or italics).
• Comments on third option: I definitely would not want to proceed with this option. We have already spent a considerable amount of time here trying to figure this out. I would not want to have to do this every single time on every single page when editors make such inconsequential edits. If we proceed with this we are setting the precedent for any kind of edit made to these pages to be, for all intents and purposes, filibustered when one editor has a personal issue with the edit. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(2nd) Statement by Danre98: I agree with much of the moderator's summary. I don't want to close this discussion with an agreement on Nastaliq's use as I don't think that will the resolve the dispute. Xerxes1985 is an inactive editor that probably hasn't seen the moderator's request for a paragraph about what the issue is. The dispute would resume whenever they get on Wikipedia again. I think the second option of an RfC somewhere to determine what the community thinks is the best option. As WikiEditUsername7 notes, there are too many Afghanistan articles that are disputed over the difference in script to make Option 3 practical. I think input from more editors would be beneficial- only 3 (2 active) editors are currently involved and would bring a more binding end to the dispute when one of the editors was not part of this (moderated) discussion. However, I am unsure as to where in the WP:MOS the RfC should go (the talk pages of WP:NASTALIQ or WP:FONTFAMILY seem like the more relevant places). I would note that MOS:FOREIGNITALIC does not provide guidance on whether Nastaliq should be used or not, at least how I read it. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3rd) Statement by Xerxes1985: I am not sure why the moderators or anyone are assuming that I didn’t made a statement, I have made it at least 3 times with all the talk pages included, I understand that the admins might be too busy to look through all of them, but I have made a very clear statement in this page here as well, I can surely copy paste that statement again if you really want to but I don’t think that’s much necessary, everybody can just read my first statement which I’ve made here. I disagree with all 3 options, there’s no need to just change all the fonts, because if you permit it occasionally WikiEditUsername7 will just blindly attack every single Afghanistan-related article as well. Just a whole mess, furthermore if you do that you should change all Iranian related articles as well to Nastaliq style if you don’t want to make it a mess. Why change anything has always been working perfectly fine ? The Nastaliq variety is officially used for all documents etc in Pakistan, hence why every Pakistani related article has words in the Nastaliq style included and not the classic style. In Afghanistan official documents or texts itself are written in the classical way, hence why all the articles in Afghanistan have had included the classical style on WP and not the Nastaliq style, until this user joined and went on his personal Nastaliq-crusade to “reclaim our script as Iranics from the subcontinent” (his words). Cheers Xerxes1985 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up by WikiEditUsername7: My friend, with all due respect, I do not understand why you keep repeating the below:

hence why all the articles in Afghanistan have had included the classical style on WP and not the Nastaliq style, until this user joined and went on his personal Nastaliq-crusade.

— Xerxes1985

What say you to the pages on the National Assembly of Afghanistan, Hotak dynasty, Kabul River, Ferdowsi, Mahmud of Ghazni, Ahmad Zahir, Afghan National Police, Persian alphabet, Babur, Nur Jahan, and the countless other pages that were utilizing Nastaliq before I ever had a Wikipedia account? Repeating a false statement over and over again will not render it true. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the moderator. Discuss content, not contributors. Do not allege that other editors are posting falsehoods (even if they are posting falsehoods). One of the purposes of the dispute resolution process is to try to tease out truth. Answer each question in one paragraph, not with a long series of short paragraphs or a wall of text. Be civil and concise. That means be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first question, and I think I know the answer, is whether this is a dispute about styles of Arabic letters to be used in Afghan articles. Is that the issue?

The second question is: What fonts or styles of letters do you think should be used in Afghan articles?

The third question is: Why do you think what you do on the second question? What policy or guideline, or what rule of common sense, dictates what fonts should or should not be used?

The fourth question is: Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third Statement by WikiEditUsername7:

First Question: Almost. The official languages of Afghanistan are Dari and Pashto. Dari includes all of the Arabic letters plus 4 additional ones (32 in total). Pashto contains all of the Arabic letters plus 17 additional ones (45 in total). So it's not only limited to Arabic letters as the additional letters are unique to Dari and Pashto respectively and they are not found in Arabic.

Second Question: Any of the five principle styles outlined here are fine (Naskh, Nastaliq, Diwani, Thuluth, Reqa). However, I am only aware of Naskh and Nastaliq being an option in Wikipedia.

Third Question: It's common sense. There are a variety of different fonts used in the country and larger region (I have already shared links in previous discussion showing the use of Nastaliq in Afghan books, signs, TV, poetry, art, etc.). Picking one over the other and exclusively using it does not make sense. The pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghans have historically used a mix of both. Some pages only used Naskh, some only used Nastaliq, and some used both (see pages on National Assembly of Afghanistan, Hotak dynasty, Kabul River, Ferdowsi, Mahmud of Ghazni, Ahmad Zahir, Afghan National Police, Persian alphabet, Babur, Nur Jahan for reference). It is totally unnecessary to regulate this and limit it to one over the others. It would just create unnecessary roadblocks and lead to more and more disputes like these in the future. This is not a big deal. All of them are used in Afghanistan, all of them use native letters and spelling, and all of them convey the same meaning. Absolutely nothing of substance changes when you use Naskh vs Nastaliq vs Diwani vs Thuluth vs Reqa. Additionally, the guidance for use of foreign language is already clear per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC (if you use foreign language in the article, make sure it is in parentheses and make sure you do not use bold or italics).

Fourth Question: No other issues

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(3rd) Statement by Danre98: Sorry, I'm a bit late posting my statement. Yes, the moderator's description of the dispute is accurate. I think the Naskh script should be favored but an editor is allowed to use Nastaliq if they are the ones adding the native spelling. Why? One might say that MOS:FONTFAMILY precludes its use, however I disagree. The stated reasons is that it interferes with Wikipedia's flexibility and it's impossible to forsee what fonts are installed. I'm not sure how using Nastaliq in a limited way would interfere with Wikipedia's flexibility and if the user does not have Nastaliq installed Naskh is shown instead- so not being able to predict whether the user has a Nastaliq font installed is not an issue. This is also different than using a different English font in Wikipedia articles- there is a history and a meaning behind different scripts. Urdu on Pakistan articles uses Nastaliq and part of the why behind it is that almost everything in Urdu is written in Nastaliq. My understanding (which could very well be wrong) is that in Dari (Afghan Persian) Nastaliq is used in some circumstances, like for poetry. Unfortunately I was unable to find a reliable source on how it is used in Afghanistan. Because it is used in some circumstances, I think it shouldn't be disallowed but Naskh should be preferred. I am unaware of any other issues related to this. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors agree that the issue has to do with the use of the Nastaliq font for writing languages that are used in Afghanistan, and that one editor objects to the use of that font. These editors say that the use of either Nastaliqor Naskh should be permitted. The editor who objects to the use of the font has participated in this discussion sporadically. My preference would be to state that the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted. I have not been able yet to determine what guideline or MOS page should be either amended or written to apply to the choice of fonts for native names that are written in non-Latin scripts. I am continuing to research the matter of where to address the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to leave this dispute open, possibly for an extended period of time, while I am researching the need for an MOS page. In the meantime, my advice to Xerxes1985 is to leave any present or future occurrences of Nastaliq alone. If reverting of Nastaliq resumes, the other editors have at least four choices. First, they can leave the reverting alone, in which case Xerxes1985 will presumably revert it to Naskh. Second, they can start an RFC at WikiProject Afghanistan. I am willing to assist in preparing the RFC. Third, they can start an RFC at each page. That seems tedious, and I don't recommend it. Fourth, since Xerxes1985 has been alerted to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan case, they can report the dispute at Arbitration Enforcement. One of the purposes of DRN is to avoid the need for WP:ANI and Arbitration Enforcement, so I urge the editors to try to avoid disruption. Also in the meantime, this case is open for further comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Statement by WikiEditUsername7: The moderator says that "my preference would be to state that the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted." I am ok with that. Additionally, I am ok with leaving the dispute open while the moderator researches the need for an MOS page. Lastly, can the moderator elaborate on what they mean by "fourth, since Xerxes1985 has been alerted to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan case, they can report the dispute at Arbitration Enforcement." I checked out the link and I don't see anything related to Xerxes1985 on these pages. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon The first question, and I think I know the answer, is whether this is a dispute about styles of Arabic letters to be used in Afghan articles. Is that the issue?

Perso-Arabic letters yes.

The second question is: What fonts or styles of letters do you think should be used in Afghan articles?

The classic one, not the Nastaliq one

The third question is: Why do you think what you do on the second question? What policy or guideline, or what rule of common sense, dictates what fonts should or should not be used?

The Nastaliq style is only officially used in Pakistan, nowhere else, hence why Pakistan-related articles are always using the Nastaliq style, while Afghanistan and Iran related articles never have been using the Nastaliq style on Wikipedia, only on very rare occasion where IP’s or users like WikiEditUsername7 have inserted it. In Afghanistan and Iran itself normal texts in a Book or official document are usually always written in the normal classical style , while Nastaliq is, at best, used for art, special short titles( for example book covers etc) or calligraphy at the very most. It has always been like this accordingly on Wikipedia as well, in Pakistan Nastaliq is used regularly for books and documents as well, hence why all Pakistan related articles have Nastaliq in them. A normal smartphone keyboard for Persian/Dari and Pashto has the classical script as well, not the Nastaliq one, furthermore every online newspaper article and regular online article in Farsi/Dari and Pashto is also always written in the classical way, on the other hand what kind of script is used on a smartphone keyboard for Urdu? Surprise, surprise, it’s the Nastaliq one. What script is used for newspaper or regular articles on Urdu online? Surprise, surprise, it’s Nastaliq.

The fourth question is: Are there any other issues?

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WikiEditUsername7 already terrorized countless of articles with his Nastaliq-crusade, he ignored all my warnings and kept on editing which led us here. I get headaches from just thinking about how much of work it would be to revert all of it back Xerxes1985 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the matter of what Arabic scripts to use should be addressed somewhere in the MOS. However, while that issue is being researched, I am proposing to start a Request for Comments on the WikiProject Afghanistan talk page. which will ask which of two rules should apply to native forms of proper names: (1) the use of either the Nastaliq or the Naskh script are permitted; (2) only the use of the Naskh script is permitted. If an editor wishes to include a third choice in the RFC, please mention it within a few days, because the RFC will be published within a few days.

Please comment on the proposed RFC and make any other comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A draft of the proposed RFC is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan/Script RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Danre98: Thank you for taking the time to research this issue and draft a RfC. I also agree that this is something to address somewhere in the MOS, especially as this is a style issue. The one thing that I think could be added is links to the previous discussion, but that could be linked by any editor (including myself) in the threaded discussion and need not be part of the draft. There aren't any choices that I think are missing from the RfC. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 18:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WikiEditUsername7: I am ok with the RfC as is and I have no further options to add. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Game Changers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RBut (talk · contribs)
• Dumuzid (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Layne Norton is referenced in the article and has been funded by animal agriculture industries (shown by studies he has authored and he has prefaced this himself in his referenced critique article). This is not mentioned in the wiki article. Two editors are actively removing the COI disclaimer.

This is a reply to: "RBut is describing as a COI disclaimer) that are not referenced by third-party sources.", sorry but I do not know why jps would say this, when he is well aware that reference 19 has pointed this out. Here is reference 19 from the Game Changers article: "Layne starts off, as most all scientific presentations do, by dealing with bias. He admits his biases and states that he was funded by egg and dairy [industry]. In fact, the lab he trained in was heavily funded by animal agriculture. His preceptor was a main consultant for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association and all the articles I have read from his lab have had an industry sponsor. As you will see. most of the articles he cites in his review are industry funded." RBut (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Game_Changers#Promoters

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether COI should be disclaimed for Layne Norton in the wiki article, for a topic Layne Norton has a COI in, a topic Layone Norton engaged with which is referenced in the article, without the COI preface/disclaimer.

Hello, RBut wishes to undercut some of the critiques in the current article with what looks to me like non-notable original research. I think the vision of COI being advanced here is also a bit overbroad. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content at issue is additional *rejoinders* (what RBut is describing as a COI disclaimer) that are not referenced by third-party sources. Consensus seems to be that we should not include this text. jps (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • RBut is relatively new to this. Dumuzid and I have both seen his notification on the article talkpage. jps (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to moderate this dispute. First, read the ground rules for discussion. Be civil and concise. The length of the talk page posts has been excessive, which may be a reason why this dispute has continued. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but they do not convey information effectively. Comment on content, not contributors. I have a question. There is a great deal of argument about conflict of interest. I would like to clarify that the question has to do with persons described in the article, especially Layne Norton, and not with conflict of interest by Wikipedia editors. If the dispute is about Wikipedia conflict of interest, then this is the wrong noticeboard. If this is about funding of research by persons mentioned in the article, then the issue is one of article content, how to describe the conflict in the article (and that is what this noticeboard is for). I will ask each editor to be specific, and identify one or more paragraphs in the article that either should be changed, or should be left the same. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help Robert. This is about Layne Norton. He disclaimed he has been funded by animal agriculture industries in his critique of Game Changers that is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article. A critique of his critique (by Dr. Garth Davis) is referenced in the wiki article that mentions he has been funded by animal agriculture industries. For specifics, he has been funded by the The National Dairy Council and Egg Nutrition Center (they have alternative names which have official wiki pages, American Dairy Association and American Egg Board). The grounds and justifications for adding this disclaimer are there, right?

The current "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company," should be changed to "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company, with (or and) previous funding by the American Dairy Association and American Egg Board" RBut (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, thanks for your assistance. You are quite right--the "COI" at issue is with regard to sources mentioned in the article, not actually any editors. I believe the main points of contention are the fifth and sixth paragraphs under the heading of "Reception." RBut wishes to introduce facts which he thinks establish a conflict on the part of reviewers of the film. I believe they are not notable and mentioning critiques does not require the naming of every possible bias of every reviewer/critic/source. RBut obviously feels differently, and I will note for the record that they have largely been civil, even if I have offered some thoughts on how to be more persuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we do reference Davis's critique of Norton's review. Davis is a doctor who promotes a POV similar to that of the film, and I believe the text does justice to describing the dispute neutrally. Using Davis as a justification for altering the description of Norton is necessarily adopting the POV of Davis. jps (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a direct quote from Layne Norton's article disclaiming his previous funding, this article is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article: "Some of my research in graduate school was sponsored by the Egg Nutrition Center as well as the National Dairy Council." RBut (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that one editor wishes to insert a funding comment about Layne Norton, and another editor opposes the insertion of the comment. Is that correct? The applicable policies and guidelines appear to be neutral point of view and due weight. Are there any other content issues? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement supporting changing the article or leaving it the same? I intend to collapse overly long statements, so, if you want your argument read, don't make it too long. Also, does any editor have a compromise wording that they will propose should be considered? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It simply strikes me that RBut is going a few steps too far in trying to undermine critics of the film. The things he wished to bring up to me are not notable and verge on WP:OR. Apologies to RBut, as I don't mean to speak for them, but it sometimes feel like they wish to advance the position that anyone who is not a fan of the movie or plant-based diets in general is conflicted such that they cannot be trusted. I obviously disagree with this notion and don't think we need to stretch in order to undermine incidental criticisms in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors are against including previous COI (Dumuzid and jps), while I am for it (Rbut). I believe the COI is notable, due weight and relevant. Layne Norton himself has disclosed the funding, pointing out his potential bias, and the person responding to Layne (Garth Davis), has pointed this out too (because pointing out previous funding and potential bias is an important point, as it would be with any other industry, such as the tobacco industry). In my opinion, it is notable, due weight, and NPOV because it is an objective, factual and relevant claim that the person himself discloses. RBut (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, why their position is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Also, I will allow back-and-forth discussion between the editors to see if a compromise can be reached. This back-and-forth discussion will continue either until it reaches a compromise or until I conclude that it is repetitive or otherwise not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I wish to note the good faith of RBut, but I simply think they are approaching this a bit too much like advocacy. The proposed changes are tangential, at best, and are non-notable details about critics--which, to my mind, would violate both notability and original research guidelines. Moreover, though not weasel words per se, there is something of the same effect here; the proposed changes would leave the impression that there has been no legitimate criticism of the film, which does not seem an accurate summation to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every source should be identified so that the reader knows why they are being used. This is the essence of WP:ATT, for example. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to highlight what one editor thinks are relevant conflicts of interest when the only source which so identifies them as relevant/identifiable conflicts of interest to highlight is doing so in a polemical fashion. We use to the rejoinder by Davis as a reliable source for Davis's opinion, but we do not highlight what Davis highlights in WP voice (WP:ASSERT) for wont of keeping WP:NPOV. It would likewise be unreasonable to state something like, "Davis's income is derived mostly from promoting the same sorts of ideas as promoted in The Game Changers". Poisoning the well should not be the goal of WP prose. jps (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Layne Norton) that is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article prefaced his previous funding in the same article. It couldn't possibly be breaking policies and guidelines to further reference the same article disclaiming his funding? He has prefaced this information because it is relevant, which coincidentally follows Wikipedias COI guidelines, confirming notability. RBut (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid: Two points. 1. Disclosing previous funding does not illegitimize criticism provided by the source. 2. From the Game Changers article: "In defense of the film, Garth Davis, a vegan medical doctor and best-selling author of a book promoting the health benefits of a plant-based diet" - Do the same guidelines apply to this quote? no source was cited that he is 1. a vegan, and 2. he has a best selling book promoting a plant based diet.

jps: My argument does not rely on Garth being used. Layne himself prefaced his previous funding in the same critique that is used. Layne can easily be quoted. RBut (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What quote do you want to use? Be specific, please. jps (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Layne's quote: "Some of my research in graduate school was sponsored by the Egg Nutrition Center as well as the National Dairy Council". RBut (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that at all relevant to The Game Changers movie? More to the point, if you included the actual context for this quote, it would by Norton essentially explaining his opinion on how he was honest and the movie makers were not about potential conflicts of interest. Seem very in the weeds... but if you're going to argue for including a direct quote to Layne Norton, it would be best practice to include the context as well. I think the article is already overlong about all this. I'm not sure you've given a good reason why we should keep adding more and more to it. But we certainly can't just add cherrypicked quotes to make only the points you want to have align with your position. jps (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because the COI is directly relevant to the positions he has taken, hence the author prefacing them. This is like saying somebody that has been funded by the tobacco industry that is critiquing the "dangers of smoking" shouldn't have their funding displayed because it isn't relevant. Your further points are not relevant to the argument (this dispute resolution thread). RBut (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because the COI is directly relevant to the positions he has taken, hence the author prefacing them. No, this is not the way things work. We need secondary sources that recognize this sort of relevance. We don't have that. One option could be to remove the Norton/Davis discussion entirely... but so far I haven't seen you interested in that. jps (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, the source itself listed their COI. To now suggest to further quote the source and their mention of their COI requires a secondary source is extremely illogical. RBut (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Them's the rules of WP. jps (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RBut -- I agree re: illegitimization (to use an overly long word), but again, I think it is akin to weasel words. While saying something true, you can sort of undercut or "spin" the effect of an entire phrase or section. As to guidelines applying equally, I think they do. The difference for me is that those are essentially the bases of Garth Davis's notability (though the claims certainly should be sourced) whereas previous funding is not the basis of Norton's. Again, the fact that it's not even known to be current is also an issue for me. I'll be interested to hear an outside take. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funding does not have to be current for you to be biased towards the source of the funding. It is something done in every wiki article. A persons previous funding for an industry is listed if they also happen to be defending it, e.g. "this person is a climate change denier. Has been funded by the fossil fuel industry for so and so". When it comes to Layne this doesn't change. It is just as notable. RBut (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is something done in every wiki article. This is simply not true. It is only done when reliable secondary sources identify it as relevant. In this case, there is one and only one primary source other than the author himself that has even mentioned it. jps (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the exact same reasoning used to justify adding the critique to the Game Changers wiki article can be used to justify further adding the COI. The author himself decided it was important. RBut (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RBut, I certainly agree that funding can be pertinent, but I hesitate to say it is always so. This is why we look to secondary sources. If someone received money decades ago, is that still relevant? For myself, I stick to epistemic humility. I really don't know. That's why I try to find reliable sources to push me in one direction or the other. Where there is silence, I tend not to leap in to the gap, as it were. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the reasoning used to justify adding this source to the article can be further used to add the funding, which the same source disclaimed. To now request a different standard is illogical. So from my analysis the addition of funding is justified. I believe it is up to the moderator now. RBut (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to eliminate the source entirely, that's an option here. You haven't really argued that yet. jps (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with Layne's critique. The fact that the COI has the grounds to also be mentioned causes you to now suggest removing the source is troubling to say the least, especially because of your accusations of "we certainly can't just add cherrypicked quotes to make only the points you want to have align with your position" which now seems like a projection. You were okay with the source, as long as it fit your position and their COI did not have to be listed? RBut (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're at a standstill and I judge that you have not made the case that anything should change. jps (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you find 'troubling to say the least' RBut? It would be helpful if you were more explicit. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are at an impasse, we have two ways forward. I can remain neutral and put the question to a Request for Comments. Or I can offer a fourth opinion, which will make me non-neutral. I will only offer a fourth opinion if I know that the parties will accept it, because I don't have another moderator ready to come in if I become involved. If any editor says that they want a Request for Comments, I will set up a Request for Comments.

Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the section for the purpose, but it appears that the editors have agreed that it is not working toward a compromise.

Each editor may make a two-paragraph statement saying how they are willing to resolve this dispute, and why they think that the article should be either changed or left unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have right now a paragraph dedicated to a rather extensive critique written by Layne Norton. In that paragraph, we identify Norton biographically and include three of the main points he makes in his critique. One of those points is that he objects to the lack of clear identification of the funding for certain studies mentioned in the movie. He contrasts that with his own research work which is not particularly relevant to the critique but just sits as an exemplar of what he considers to be ethical behavior. Garth Davis writes a response to Norton's critique that focuses on a few issues that he is bothered by and we include some quotes that indicate this. One thing that Davis mentions is that Norton's complaint about COI is disingenuous because research that is not promoting plant-based diets are funded by Big Ag. We indicate that he objected to Norton's "bias" which, in detail, is what RBut wants us to highlight.

The thing is, though, that this is a level of analysis that goes far beyond what we would normally tolerate for summarizing two primary sources. I myself am okay with including these summaries because these are two subject experts talking about the technical aspects of the film. Interesting for the readers, but getting into the weeds is not recommended. Highlighting who funded Norton's research in graduate school is a bridge too far. That's the basic idea. So leave the paragraph as is.

jps (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, I agree with jps here. Just unnecessary for an encyclopedic discussion of the film. I am certainly happy to have you opine, Robert McClenon, and will stand by whatever decision is rendered. Beyond that, I don't think much more is necessary. Have a nice day, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Gini coefficient#Other uses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sarouk7 (talk · contribs)
• Limit-theorem (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a contribution of a new use of the Gini coefficient in reliability engineering. The addition was supported by citation of a research paper citation that was introdiced and pulished as a chapter in a springer book Kaminskiy, M.P.; Krivtsov, V.V. (2011). "A Gini-Type Index for Aging/Rejuvenating Objects". Mathematical and Statistical Models and Methods in Reliability. Birkhäuser Boston: Springer. p. 133-140. ISBN 978-0-8176-4970-8.. I understand that the use is limited to the reliability engineering field, and that was the reason I added it as a contribution under other uses of the Gini coefficient. I noticed that there are other uses under that section with much fewer citations: Ref 74 has only 27 citations, reference 78 has 3 citations, and reference 81 has no citation.

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

Discussion in the talk page: Talk:Gini_coefficient#Gini_index_other_uses

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think a mediator mediating the discussion would lead towards a constructive discussion.

1) These citations correspond to research published by a small group of researchers. Scientific articles should map to things accepted in mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.

This is not encyclopedia level by any stretch. I would gladly support these edits and help with their phrasing/introduction if one can find any such discussions in significant mainly reference review articles. But, alas, there are no significant secondary sources on this use of the Gini in the standard literature and the papers added are new and, really, really, low impact (low citations, and such publication as the one called the "13th Iranian Statistics Conference" or "On Gini−type index applications in reliability analysis, Reliability Theory and its Applications, Mashhad, Iran, 2017.").

The topic of the Gini inequality metric is vast and one cannot add every single low-impact paper unpublished or in no-impact journals on a novel use of the concept; it would make the page grow to hundreds of pages.

WP:SCIRS: "The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it relevant. Many ideas are proposed and disregarded in the context of scientific discourse. If an idea is cited by a small minority of researchers, but rejected or ignored by the majority of researchers in a field, it should receive limited weight according to its acceptance; ideas held by a tiny minority of researchers need not be reported in our articles, except in articles devoted to these ideas. "

2) Finally, these papers are about aging and reliability analysis, not the Gini coefficient which may be used in some of their branches. It is not about the Gini, but that would be another discussion. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to determine whether this is the right noticeboard for this issue. Please read the usual rules. All of the rules are important, but the most important rule at this point is to be concise. Is this about:

• 1. The reliability of sources?
• 2. Whether a use of the Gini coefficient is original research?
• 3. Whether reporting something would give it undue weight in an article?
• 4. Some other question of policies and guidelines?
• 5. Something that isn't about policies and guidelines?

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main question in terms of policies and guidelines? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Excluding academic sources due to relative infrequency of citations in citation indexes. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sarouk7:

1. The reliability of sources:

Per WP:RS, “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications." The subject GINI usage is referenced in the following books:

Mathematical and Statistical Models and Methods in Reliability. Editors: Rykov, V.V., Balakrishnan, N, Nikulin, M.S. (Eds.) Birkhäuser Boston: Springer. p. 133-140. ISBN 978-0-8176-4970-8.

Kaminskiy, M.P. (2013) Reliability Models for Engineers and Scientists (1st ed.). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London, doi.org/10.1201/b13701, ISBN ISBN-13: 978-1466565920.

The two books are published by Springer and Taylor & Francis, respectively, which are highly reputable publishers of scientific literature with peer-review editorial boards. Notably, the latter is a textbook (as it has end-of-the-chapter exercises) and is used in educational courses at several universities.

2. Whether a use of the Gini coefficient is original research?

Per WP:NOR, “Original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist”. However, reliable published sources do exist for the proposed use of the Gini coefficient, as explained in #1 above.

3. Whether reporting something would give it undue weight in an article?

No, it wouldn’t. On the contrary, it shows an elegant extension of the Gini Coefficient to the Reliability Theory, much like other uses that are already reference in the Gini Coefficient article: a measure of biodiversity Reference#73, quality of life in a population Reference#74, a measure of the inequality of universities Reference#75, selectivity of protein kinase inhibitors against a panel of kinases Reference#76,

4. Some other questions of policies and guidelines?

In my opinion, No.

5. Something that isn't about policies and guidelines?

5.1 The opposing side doesn’t seem to disagree that the Gini Coefficient use in Reliability Theory is published by reliable sources. However, they do dispute the reliability of the secondary sources (that reference the primary source). In doing so, they focus on one (indeed not so reliable) source but ignore other, truly reliable sources, such as:

M. Parsa, A. Di Crescenzo, H Jabbari, Analysis of reliability systems via Gini−type index, European Journal of Operational Research, pp. 340 – 353, 2018

A. Păun, C. Chandler, C.B. Leangsuksun, M. Păun. A failure index for HPC applications, Journal of Parallel and Distrib. Comput., Elsevier, 2016.

5.2 The opposing is using the citation index as a criterion for judging the reliability of academic articles for Wikipedia purposes. Yet, this criterion is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in WP:RS. Another Wikipedian, @TransporterMan:, already raised this topic on Gini Talk page and Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Furthermore, even if this criterion was used, some of the Other Gini Uses have as low as 3 citations, such as this one: Measurement of the discriminatory power of rating systems in credit risk management.Reference#78 — whereas, the proposed use of Gini in Reliability has over 40 citations as referenced by the original sources and over 10 citations — by the secondary sources.

The two journals linked above are highly reputable in the fields and have significant impact factors. Sarouk7 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Limit-theorem

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia representing a summary state of knowledge in a given subject matter. If we let every entry such as the Gini to be expanded and be bloated to include fringe and indirect research (even if promising), it would no longer be an encyclopedia but a discussion board. Scientific fields have metrics to evaluate whether something is part of a normal curriculum on a subject and editor's Sarouk7's additions do not fit the bill. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I said to be concise, and that the most important consideration was to be concise, I meant to be concise. When I said to post one paragraph about what was the main question, I meant to post one paragraph about what was the main question, not to post one paragraph about each of five possible answers. I did not say that I would collapse overly long posts, so I won't do that.

Any editor who did not post one paragraph in response to my first statement may post one paragraph in response to my first statement. Any editor who did post one paragraph in response to my first statement may post one more paragraph in support of their previous paragraph. Comment on content, not contributors. Overly long posts will be collapsed (as will other inappropriate posts, but I do not expect other inappropriate posts). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• One country, two systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Read-learn-love (talk · contribs)
• Citobun (talk · contribs)
• Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

See section, "Dispute resolution attempt with others regarding my efforts to improve article neutrality and apparent edit warring actions in response" on the Talk page of the article, "One country, two systems"

Assistance in dispute resolution requested. I will make efforts to be a cooperative participant in dispute resolution and work towards a fair outcome. I will make all efforts to follow Wikipedia policies and avoid 3 reverts in 24 hours, or even 48 hours (extra precaution on my part). I reverted my own revert to follow the policy (after realizing my mistake) and will assume good faith in dispute resolution as long as others do the same.

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

See: [1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Encourage other users involved to work towards a compromise rather than them continuing to revert my edit in tandem.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor is also advised that posting walls of text to the article talk page is not discussion, and they and the other editors should actually try to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• Balon Greyjoy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Originally I had introduced an edit discussing the relevance of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s 1973 report summarising their investigation that was triggered by a bidder's complaint to the RFP for NASA's decision to award the solid rocket booster contract to Thiokol Morton.

In the thorough conversation that ensued on the talk page, Balon Greyjoy and VQuakr stated that the GAO report was not relevant to the disaster, a point that I vehemently disagreed with.

At the end of the first period of discussion it was understood that if I could demonstrate that bidders had concerns over the Thiokol designs and there was evidence to support they had been voiced in 1973, that this material would be worthy of mention.

Unfortunately in my discussion with the GAO, my FOIA (RFI 21-182) resulted in no additional documents being produced. I however found a source that conclusively stated that a competing company in the RFP process voiced concerns about Thiokol's o ring design, which was determined to be the cause of failure.

Editor VQuakr now has removed my edit in spite of my production of the necessary evidence that demonstrates the original RFP complaint yielded concerns by other competitors about the safety of Thiokol's design. VQuakr now claims the GAO report is not relevant, in spite of there being no avenue for competitors to voice concerns of an award winner's design outside of the RFP complaint process that is handled by the GAO.

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

Please consult Talk:Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster#the_GAO_investigations_and_their_relation_to_the_U.S._house_hearings

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be nice to have a set of eyes look at the amount of evidence I have produced in support of my position. Originally I used the book by Malcolm McConnell that states the attitude of the NASA SSO Fletcher, who praised Thiokol's design in response to the RFP complaints, had significant impact on the disaster.

I have now produced a good source (NY Times) that further states the concerns were there in 1973, and I feel that overlooking the importance of the GAO process is unreasonable