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

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250

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

– Discussion in progress.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Four Noble Truths (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• Robertinventor (talk · contribs)
• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Robertinventor thinks that the Four Noble Truths article relies too much on scholarly sources; he thinks that these scholarly sources are mistaken on the four truths; he thinks that "traditional pov's" are excluded; and he thinks that this gives a wrong impression of the four truths. His proposal is to split-off an article based on scholarly sources, and retain the main article for "traditional pov's", which in his opinion are best preserved in this version of 10 october 2014; I think that this is contrary to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONCENSUS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Endless discussion at the talkpage; several requests for topic-bans, one of which was admitted.

How do you think we can help?

Helping Robert clarify his arguments; help him formulate concrete proposals for textual changes (Robert does not want to edit the article himself).

I believe the reason for this DRN is that I objected[1] when @Ms Sarah Welch: removed my POV tag[2][3] from the Four Noble Truths. Please note that this was preceded by WP:TPOs by @Joshua Jonathan: who deleted my first post in several months from the talk page[4], and then when @Farang Rak Tham: reverted [5], by @Ms Sarah Welch: who then collapsed it[6]. This was followed by another attempt to get me topic banned by JJ, which lead @Softlavender: to warn him about trumping up a non-issue, and that if he persisted, she would request a boomerang, for his WP:TPO[7][8][9].

In my view we have two WP:SUBPOVs here. To demonstrates this, and the impossibility of consensus editing, see: evidence from editing history. Sutra tradition editors have given up attempting to edit now except for the Anatta article. They make occasional edit attempts there, but these are reverted by JJ etc.

There are few active editors remaining in the topic area with the SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhism. My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from readers, including previously active editors, and invite discussion. So, what I propose is to add POV tags to the four core articles Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Anatta and Nirvana. I would like to leave the tags in place for at least several months to get some discussion going.

My current proposal is to separate out the SUBPOVs. This is already done in the religion topic area, for instance, Resurrection of Jesus has four versions according to WP:SUBPOVs. The idea is to use the current mature articles and the ones from before JJ's non consensus major rewrites in 2014 as starting points. I had some hope that JJ etc would agree to this, but we haven't achieved consensus. However I can still present it as one idea for the POV discussions.

Here is evidence that the western academics themselves recognize the two SUBPOVs. Here is a summary of some of the differences in the SUBPOVs.

My only wish is to add those POV tags.

@Ms Sarah Welch: The POV tags would of course explain what is POV about the articles. When you removed the tag, someone had previously edited it to remove its link to the section on the talk page where I summarized the POV issues. This is the section it originally linked to Short summary of the issues with this article. I would use a "SUBPOV" tag if such exists but can't find one. But an article which is SUBPOV, if it is not balanced by the presence of another article with the other SUBPOV becomes POV. Hope that is clearer now.

@Ms Sarah Welch: the cite to beyondthenet.net is a quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi, which the article itself cites to him. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a highly respected WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism. It is of course possible for even a mature article to have some unnoticed cites that are less than WP:RS. But that's not one of them, at least as far as the author is concerned, so long as one accepts Therevadhan scholar Bhikkhus as WP:RS for Therevadhan Buddhism. It would of course be reasonable to ask for the original source for that quote. But that is surely just a minor issue that would have been reasonable to raise on the talk page. It's not a reason for a major non consensus rewrite of the whole thing, that you are unsure of the provenance of a single quote on the page.

@Ms Sarah Welch: I can understand that if one is immersed in the views of western academics, this article may not seem to be a POV at all but to be NPOV. But it's only NPOV within the topic of western academic Buddhism, and doesn't represent the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. After all, why do you think we tried so hard to get @Joshua Jonathan: to revert his edits? If you can't see that we have a different SUBPOV, can you not see at least that we think there is a difference of SUBPOV? And why do you think Carol Anderson's "Basic Buddhism" makes no mention of her views in "Pain and its Ending" if both represent the same SUBPOV?

Do you think that "Basic Buddhism" and "Pain and its Ending" represent the same SUBPOV?

@Winged Blades of Godric: First, I'd use a SUBPOV tag if there is one. Suppose that you were a Muslim or a Jew, and felt that Resurrection of Jesus was POV because it doesn't mention the Islamic or Jewish views on the matter, and there were no articles yet presenting it from these perspectives - I think you'd add a POV tag but you wouldn't expect Muslim or Jewish editors to be able to work in consensus with Christians to make it NPOV. We tried that here and it doesn't work. But that doesn't make it NPOV. So what else can I do? If you have suggestions do say. We do need to attract editors from the other SUBPOV to the project and - maybe they will have other solutions. Also this idea that it can only be solved by two separate articles is just a proposal. if I add a POV tag then perhaps other sutra Buddhists can find a way to make a NPOV version of it, in collaboration with @Joshua Jonathan: when @Dorje108: and I were unable to do so - I don't know. And it is just my own view that such an article would be confusing - maybe they find a way to do it that is not confusing, and easy to read?

On Walpola Rahula he is one of many WP:RS in this topic area. However he was particularly notable, his book is perhaps the most famous one on Therevadhan Buddhism, it covers the four truths in great detail, and he spanned both the Eastern and Western scholarship being trained in both with a PhD at a western university, and working as a professor in a Western university from the 1960s to his death. Also, his book on Therevadhan Buddhism covers core teachings common to all the Buddhist sutra traditions because many of the Pali Canon sutras are common to them all. The 2014 article has numerous cites, and presents this SUBPOV throughout. [10]. For several more cites on the third truth of cessation, as a truth that is realized in this life, not at death, see the section Third truth: cessation of dukkha of the previous mature article. The cites used there are all WP:RS for this SUBPOV. See also the section: Experiental knowledge

@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but to hopefully help a little, I've just added three new sections to show the POV slant of the Four Noble Truths article towards the WP:SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism. I could give many other examples of this nature, indeed just about all sections in all four articles are POV like this. See POV sections of the article. Any questions be sure to say.

@Winged Blades of Godric: I've just edited Example 2 Historical Development with some information about the authors on the POV of authenticity (which JJ has now moved to a new section Pali Canon#Attribution according to Theravadins), and also added a new section About Religious Sources which quotes from the 2008 discussion on the talk page that lead to the current guidelines on Religious Sources.

@Winged Blades of Godric: Oh, I'm not talking about a few scholars who might have unusual ideas. We are talking here about the best sources there are, the most knowledgeable most reputable scholars on the Buddhist sutras. When I said that JJ says that the western scholars "note" but never the sutra tradition scholars, I didn't mean this was an evil ploy on his part. It just was an example of the SUBPOV of the article, that throughout it is written from the POV of western scholars who make observations about the Buddhist scholars SUBPOV mainly to make points that support their own SUBPOV.

My basic argument here is simply that these articles are POV and so need to have WP:POV tags. Try comparing

• The present version[11], with the
• previous version[12]

Is it not clear that they are presenting different ideas and use different sources? Anyway I've done my best. If it is not clear that they are different SUBPOV's, I'm not sure what else to say.

Can we not have the POV tags in place to permit readers of the articles to say whether they think they are POV? There are two of us, myself and @Dorje108: who say they are POV. If we could leave them tagged for a while, we can see what other comments we get.

Saying my comments are OR because I present the views of my faith there, is a bit like saying that someone's views are OR if they say that an article doesn't represent their Christian beliefs. There's surely nothing wrong in saying "This article doesn't represent the beliefs of my faith"?

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry to have given the impression that @Joshua Jonathan: is trying to sway the reader by using "states that" and "notes that". Have just made that a bit clearer, it now reads.

"As usual JJ uses "notes that", and "states that" to indicate editorial approval. Note, I'm not saying that this is intentional, as a way to sway the reader. I just take it as an indication that it is written from the western academic SUBPOV."

See Example 2 Historical Development

@Winged Blades of Godric: And yes, I edited Pali Canon a while back to add some extra references on the spectrum of views on authenticity. I added the Bhikkhu Sujato and Prayudh Payutto cites for the view of authenticity. I also added the Carol Anderson cite for the view of inauthenticity though for some reason @Joshua Jonathan: has now removed it.

However I can't even add a POV tag to Four Noble Truths without it getting reverted, and made subject to a DRN. And @Dorje108: of course did an attempt to revert during his major edit, and JJ just reverted the revert. He knows about these Therevadhan views on the authenticity of the Pali Canon - he has just now edited the Pali Canon page to move them [13]. I've also mentioned them to him many times in the talk page discussions. In his view they are not WP:RS for the article, because they are by Bhikkhus in the Therevadhan tradition, if I understand right. While he doesn't seem to mind them being used in the Pali Canon article. In any case this is just one section. Just about every single section on the page is WP:POV.

@Robert McClenon: Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

"As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha."

That's my view and that's what these articles are not doing. I've been clumsy in explaining it but I guarantee that any sutra tradition Buddhist looking at those articles would not only find them POV but find them almost unrecognizable as Buddhism.

I respect Richard Gombrich as a scholar. He is a man of integrity and he is entitled to his views which he also says brings him some peace of mind. But his views and those of the other western academic Buddhists are a different SUBPOV. A minority one too in terms of numbers. You have millions of sutra tradition Buddhists and I'd be surprised if there are as more than a few thousand with the views of western academic Buddhism. And some like Carol Anderson have feet in both camps with her book on Basic Buddhism expressing sutra tradition Buddhism.

So yes, that's my basic point. Why should the main articles on Buddhist central ideas here in wikipedia express the SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism? When @Joshua Jonathan: made his non consensus major rewrite of the articles - he made it clear by his actions that in his view their ideas are so different from the views of sutra tradition Buddhists that the entire article has to be rewritten to take account of them, even against the protest of the sutra tradition Buddhists who tried to stop him. Yet now he tells us that his articles represent our SUBPOV. How can it? Surely just his actions are enough to show that this is a distinct SUBPOV?

I would support articles on the SUBPOV of the western academics which could be almost identical to Joshua Jonathan's articles. They would be like articles on the "Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity" indeed. And for some articles like these core sutras, the western academic views are so complex and detailed and extensive, reinterpreting just about every detail of the Buddhist teachings on the matter, that they couldn't be covered in a single section but need an entire article to themselves.

In my view, that's the situation with the western academic ideas on Four Noble Truths, Anatta, Nirvana and Karma in Buddhism. The western academic ideas don't differ in just a few details but they have build up a whole complex system of ideas which they call Buddhism, but is a different SUBPOV from sutra tradition Buddhism. They identify their own SUBPOVs as what they think Buddha taught before the sutras were recorded.

@Joshua Jonathan:. Yes the sutra teachings are of course presented in the context of rebirth and the idea that when you realize cessation, you also no longer need to take rebirth again. But that's missing the point.

The Western academics you cite make it clear that total cessation of dukkha only happens at death. Indeed, at times it seems almost like a kind of "multi rebirth suicide", with the aim to cease existing and you no longer suffer because you no longer exist. In other cases it seems like the idea is a heavenly state after death that they are describing, that it's a way to get out of this world to somewhere else.

That is not how Buddhists think about it at all in the sutra traditions. It's not just an end to rebirth. It's an end to the dukkha of rebirth, the unsatisfactoriness and suffering associated with it, yes. But also to the dukkha of sickness, old age, and death.

And this cessation, it's explained clearly in multiple sources, is something that Buddha realized as a young man of 30, not at death. The cites on rebirth are about what happens once cessation is realized. But the four truths are expressed as a path to end dukkha, not a path to end rebirth.

And Buddha didn't teach us that we have to end dukkha by ending rebirth. It would have been easy for him to say that if that was his path, but he didn't. Instead he taught much more directly, that the "summum bonum" can be realized in this very life. None of your cites on rebirth contradict this, which is the fundamental distinction between the sutra tradition Buddhism and the SUBPOV of these western academics, who often are of the view that the most you can realize in this lifetime is to have somewhat less pain, and to balance sorrow with happiness, and to face your death with equanimity, according ot the article [14] "According to Ambedkar, total cessation of suffering is an illusion; yet, the Buddhist Middle Path aims at the reduction of suffering and the maximalisation of happiness, balancing both sorrow and happiness" to quote from your article.

Which could indeed be comforting, it may be a beneficial path for some. It just is not sutra tradition Buddhism. But throughout your article you present this and related views as what the Buddhist teachings are really about, and though you briefly touch on the views of sutra tradition Buddhists in a few sentences here and there, always the Western Buddhists get the last word in every section.

This is not a minority or fringe view. Walpola Rahula is one of the most respected scholars in the Therevadhan traditions, and other WP:RS on Buddhism say the same.

It is also a matter of quantity. Yes you have many cites, and occasional complete sentences about sutra tradition Buddhism, but the views of sutra tradition Buddhists are not presented in much detail. Only a small percentage of the words on the page are devoted to their views and nearly all the text presents intricate details of the western academic views. While the old version goes into the sutra tradition views on Nirvana in great detail multiple times, and of course barely mentions western academic views, so is weighted in the other direction. Neither is NPOV if they are the only articles on the topic. But both are presumably reasonably NPOV within their own SUBPOV, and if we had both articles that would provide the balance needed for NPOV, in my view as one possible solution, and that could be a basis for working on them further.

Indeed the articles as they are now could present the western academic views much more clearly if they were somewhat more focused on them, in my view. As it is, you get some idea of the Western academic views, but not that clearly, because it is mainly presented as "what is wrong with sutra tradition Buddhism" rather than going into much detail about what positively the western academic Buddhists think Buddha's message really was and how they think he intended it to be practiced. And it gives almost no idea at all about sutra tradition views. Putting them into separate SUBPOV articles I think would lead to greater clarity for both.

@Joshua Jonathan: I am afraid this is a poorly framed DRN request. FWIW, on April 21, an admin RegentsPark requested me to participate and help out on Four Noble Truths article.

My dispute with RW is the POV tag, which is procedural. RW tagged it, but did not identify specific issues with evidence verifiable in reliable sources ("I don't like it" or "I like it" is not a good reason to tag). I did not remove the tag immediately, and asked for specific clarification. I gave RW time, and waited for a response. RW promised a response. Later RW declined to address my request for explanation and specifics for the tag. I then explained why I am removing the tag, then removed the tag. If RW wants the tag back, he must explain the specific issue(s) with evidence that is verifiable in reliable source(s). Alleging that the article does not include traditional views or scholarly views, without specific evidence, is inappropriate. It is also false, the article has for a long time include both for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert Walker

• @Robertinventor: The "POV" tag is not meant to serve "My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from (...) and invite discussion." That tag is meant to help identify and fix specific NPOV issues. This is done by listing on the talk page the specific issue, with evidence of a missing or misrepresented POV from at least one RS with page numbers (more here). To invite discussion, try an RfC. You are welcome to create new SUBPOV articles in sandboxes and try to build support that they be made live. No POV tag necessary. I urge you reread Carol Anderson, Richard Gombrich, etc; because both I and @Farang Rak Tham already made a comment with concerns about what you claim about these scholars and the reality, last week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RW, Sorry, your reply is not clear to me. I don't know what you mean by SUBPOV in 4NT context. You give no specifics. Nor RS page numbers. It is Kafkaesque, "I say you are guilty [of POV], but won't tell you why or what evidence I have". Tag it so we can discuss what 4NT article or Joshua Jonathan could be guilty of!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RW, Once again, please note the DRN volunteer's comment: we can't sole source anything, that would not be NPOV. Similarly, JJ and the article can't ignore Walpola Rahula either. We don't. The article already explains Rahula's POV over a dozen times, and many more times with others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RW, you misunderstand Richard Gombrich, as @Farang Rak Tham already explained last week. The Buddhists scholars in Asia and West are saying the same thing. They do describe the views on rebirth, 4NT etc of millions of practicing Buddhists of various traditions. You champion the pre-2014 version of the article. But it cited blogs / non-WP:RS websites / WP:SPS such as beyondthenet.net, dharmanet blogs, etc. Blogs are not RS on "what millions of sutra Buddhists understand 4NT" to be, nor do they claim they represent the views of millions (some of those blogs/SPS are also by Westerners!). You allege Traditional Buddhists and Gombrich/ Bronkhorst/ Williams/ Harvey/ Rahula/ Keown say very different things. They do not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @RW, So once again you allege something.... this time, that beyondthenet.net is by Bhikkhu Bodhi, or what is on the webpage of a dead/under construction non-RS website is by Bodhi. But you never present evidence with your allegations, do you? DRN Volunteers: can you request RW to stop making allegations without evidence from reliable sources? If RW really believes something is from Bodhi, he should find a book published by a reputable publisher and give page numbers. FWIW, I checked google books, google scholar, library resources behind paywalls and I am unable to verify what RW alleges. The old pre-2014 version suffers with this systematic problem, and a few others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Winged Blades and DRN volunteers

• Winged Blades: a technical question... how are we supposed to respond to the new allegations from RW linked to a wall of text on another page? For example, it isn't true that Rahula's views are not included in this section. Rahula is covered in para 3 and 4. RW's allegation that "So - there is no way Walpola Rahula's work can be used to support Spiro's idea that somehow the search for worldly happiness is wrong" is also a misreading of what the section is actually stating. The section is merely summarizing, in para 4, the different views of Rahula and Spiro (JJ: good work there!). RW: I feel you must focus on something specific, so DRN volunteers can try to help. Right now, I see a gap between your allegations and the evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Winged Blades: Thank you. Your suggestions make sense, and I am willing to accept them in the spirit of constructive next steps. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: you? any further clarifications desired? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McClenon

• RM: Thank you. My positions: [1] The POV tag on the 4NT article would be inappropriate, in light of the diversity of sources it cites and the different significant views it already summarizes. [2] If specific issues are identified, with source and page numbers, RW or anyone is welcome to edit the article, or we can work collaboratively on it through the talk page; so far, even after one of the largest walls of text and TL/DR case I have ever seen on wikipedia, I find no persuasive case here. [3] I do not mind RW drafting one or more SUBPOVs. JJ is right that RW seems to be arguing for POVFORK, but I accept RW's freedom to draft something somewhere without disrupting wikipedia's live articles (I guess JJ wouldn't mind too). [4] The article has over 200 cites, predominant number of which are Buddhist scholars. Some are practicing Buddhists (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan traditions), some are not, as well as Buddhists who left Buddhism (e.g. Paul Williams). But these are all widely considered mainstream scholarship and Buddhist scholars. [5] RW's "no rebirth and Buddhism" POV is fringe and isn't Buddhist scholarship. Rahula, e.g., accepts rebirth-samsara-dukkha-nirvana has been an integral part of Buddhism, so do all others. The article cannot be rewritten from a fringe POV. FWIW, this section of 4NT article does discuss the Western versus Traditional view on 4NT in Buddhism, with numerous WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer comment- Greetings friends: @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: . I will try to be brief. Walpola Rahula is cited often in many texts on Buddhism (both by Western academics and Buddhist scholars) because he is such a highly respected scholar and because he provides such a clear presentation of the traditional Buddhist POV. So it’s not that RW is relying on a single source; it’s more that Walpola Rahula is one of the more clear presentations of the traditional Buddhist POV. (When I was working on this article, I consulted many sources, but I often found the Rahula stated most clearly what many sources were saying.) I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist "assert" that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are “biased”, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are “unbiased.” Therefore, by this logic, the Dalai Lama (for example) as a source should be regarded carefully (as biased), but a Western scholar is not biased. Therefore a presentation or POV by a Western scholar should be given more weight. What I think RW is suggesting (and I agree with this suggestion) is that where there are different points of view in presentation of a topic (whether among different Western academics, or between Western academics and Buddhist scholars), that both POVs should be presented. What I encountered repeatedly in my discussions with JJ (from years ago) and what I have observed in recent discussion, is that when encountered with different POVs, both Sarah and JJ insist that one POV is valid (not biased), and the other POV is not valid (biased). Another problem I observed was that JJ seemed to be trying to write a definitive article on the Four Noble Truths. In other words, he seems to be taking on the role of an academic himself, in deciding what is correct and what is not correct interpretation of Buddhist teachings. Apologies for the length of this post. I am sure everyone involved has the best intentions, and we all have our own personal biases. Also, this is a vast topic, so it is not easy to summarize. But in brief I agree with RW’s point that the current article is not written from a neutral POV (for reasons stated above). I hope this helps. Best regards Dorje108 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (note to volunteers: should this part be moved up, as Dorje108 is not a DRN volunteer?); @Dorje108: It is always a good idea to include diffs with accusations and when you cast aspersions.

You accuse, "I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased."

"Continually insist" was a poor choice of words. No offense intended. More comments below. Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Talk:Four Noble Truths, its archives, and the talk page of Project:Buddhism. I fail to see the support for your accusation. If you would kindly provide several diffs, to support your JJ and I "continually insist" language, we can examine the context and clarify any misunderstandings and associated dispute. For the second part, you too fail to provide a specific WP:RS, with page numbers, that states a POV different than the various POVs already summarized in the article. Without specifics and evidence, allegations cannot be cross examined with appropriate context and perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Ms Sarah Welch: - I just read a comment of yours regarding Walpola Rahula as a source on a talk page; but I am having trouble finding the talk page again. (I think it was a sub-page of Robert.) I am looking for the page now. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dorje108: Please take your time. It would be kind of you, and decent, if you would strike the "poor choice of words" containing phrases or sentences you are now unable to support with diffs, even if you choose not to apologize and you choose not to promise that you will never accuse someone of "continually insisting of something" without evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah: Here is an example of what I was referring to. This is your recent statement on Robert’s talk page: “Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. ” Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robertinventor&diff=prev&oldid=776575916 - So here you are contrasting “Rahula and such authors” who need to be “carefully considered” vs. “well respected, highly cited scholars”. To me this is an example of bias against Buddhist scholars who were not trained in the West. Rahula happens to be a “well respected, highly cited scholar” who was trained in Sri Lanka. Dorje108 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand the word "bias" means "prejudice, usually unfair". The above does not support your absurd allegation, "continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased". It explicitly states, Rahula needs to be carefully considered, as well as those in multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I am not acting as the moderator, and am not a principal party, but am exercising my right as an editor to comment. I haven't read the detailed history. I tried to read the statement by User:Robertinventor and found it to be too long, difficult to read. However, if I understand it, I think that he may be right about one thing. That is that Buddhism should be primarily presented as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha. The only real difference is that Buddhist teachings are based primarily on what the Buddha taught during his long ministry, while Christian teachings are based primarily on what was expounded about his teachings shortly after his short ministry. There are many Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources, just as there are many Christian scholars who qualify as secondary sources. Maybe that isn't what is in dispute. If so, then the editors need to clarify the issue. Other than that, the statements by Robert Walker are too long, difficult to read. Maybe User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Ms Sarah Welch can at least state concisely what their positions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This case may not be appropriate for WP:DRN because it is not a content dispute as such. Rather it is a dispute on how the RS and NPOV policies apply to religion articles, or even whether they should apply at all. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN noticeboards would be better venues to raise such issues. My understanding (having participated in both RSN and NPOVN) is that there are no special policies for religions. The normal criteria of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY apply. The adherents of a religion discussing their understanding of their own religion would constitute PRIMARY sources. If they are notable writers, their views can be summarised with WP:In-text attribution. However, the articles cannot be based on their understanding. Like all topics, Wikipedia aims to summarise SECONDARY sources, and religions are no exception. RI's idea of creating separate articles, one based on SECONDARY sources and on based on PRIMARY sources, is not permitted by Wikipedia policies, because they amount WP:POV forks of each other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note to participants: Please read User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules and ensure that you comply to the rules. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Filer note Robert will need more time than 24 hours: "I've got a lot on here, may not check in for a while. Things get easier here middle of next week for me. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volunteer reply Fair enough. I'd want Ms Sarah Welch to file her opening summary above or state if she doesn't wish to participate in the discussion. She's given 24 hours from my last notice to do so. Robert is given 72 hours to file a statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Yashovardhan: Please be fair as a volunteer, and not order around giving one side 24 hours, the other 72 hours. User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules is your own personal page. Did you create these rules on your own? Do you have a link to "wikipedia community agreed" DRN guidelines for DRN volunteers, and content editors? If you wish to mediate in this matter and thereby contribute to improving wikipedia, I urge you to review the edit history of the last 1000 edits of the talk/article pages, read the archives 2, 3 and 4, as well as the current talk page. It is a wall of text, but it will give you the context of who the disputing parties really are, and what the issues have been. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn As per doubts raised by Ms Sarah Welch, I withdraw from this case with all due respect to all participants. I'll post on the talk page for another volunteer to handle the case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer response to Sarah @Ms Sarah Welch:

1. firstly, there exists no compiled set of rules for DRN. The rules are roughly scattered around the notice board top and other places linked. I'd gone through and compiled all these points into my user space for the ease of disputing editors.
2. secondly, I won't go through 1000 edits just to know what kind of person you are. I'm neither required nor supposed to do so.
3. lastly, you and the filer both had asked me to provide extra leeway to Robert which I did. You had been served proper notices and were online to receive and reply to those. This, giving you any extra leeway was not necessary.

I've withdrawn from this case anyway and another volunteer will take over. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer comment--I am taking over as the moderator.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment--Both the parties are hereby allotted a stipulated time of 72 hrs. to reasonably summarize/alter their opinion or to decline participation.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer comment-I see both the parties have clarified their stand.And am currently looking on the matter.At the same time,I will request you to not reply each-other back unless I ask someone to clarify his/her position.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer comment-@Robertinventor:--A POV tag is not meant to get comments from readers and invite discussion.We have WP:RFC for that.Primarily if your views could be summarised(??) as that currently present in User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal,I am afraid that is not a very good piece of policy-based writing.I may be wrong but I think your points are mainly derived from a lone souce- Walpola Rahula.Anyway, can you please provide a list of references that suport your point of view.I seem to have missed that.ThaWinged Blades ^Godric 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer comment--Regrets for being off about a day.I am currently looking into this.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer comment--I would advice all of you to kindly refrain from engaging with each other here.And please don't reply in other's sections.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer comment--I have to regretably say, the evidences against the accusations in User:Robertinventor/DRN Evidence and supplementary information#POV sections of the article look far too much.I am sorry if I am a bit harsh but my observation goes as follows:--

• That each and every phrase/idea has been quoted to the proponent and nothing is stated in WP's voice looks good to me and not some evil editorial ploy.Furthermore in the Theravadan section Rahula has been already quoted once.
• Somewhere down the line I find you stating-- why sutra tradition Buddhists find these articles POV--that's a pretty non-sense argument at it's best.Avoid invoking elements of own WP:POV and mixing them with some WP:OR.
• If you want the article to cover the scape only from the viewpoints of Rahula and a few like-minded scholars, you could be thinking on the wrong lines.
• At Four_Noble_Truths#Historical_development you are permitted to add a contrary view-point by the Theravadian scholars.(may-be in a line or two.)
• On the point of WP:SUBPOV and forking the branches, that seems like a good idea.I believe, launching an RFC and seeking the opinion of the un-involved editorial community at large is probably the best way out on the issue.
• As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Volunteer comment--At the same time, Ms Sara Welch and Joshua Jonathan is advised that per this RFC and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area#Religious sources --Rahula and Bhikkhu Bodhi may be considered WP:RS except if tdiscusssses matters concerning its personal connection with the subject matter.And I don't primarily see any bane to opoose RI so strongly in adding a few Buddhist sources to make and back up a few traditional claims/inferences in the article qwith relevance to WP:WEIGHT.But while I say this,I admit Rahula's views are fairly present in the article.Hence,WP:WEIGHT!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by JJ: @Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for your concise comments. I don't object to using Buddhist sources an sich; as a matter of fact, I myself added several quotes by and references to Walpola Rahula, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu; and also quotes from the sutras.

What I do object to is the idea that those Buddhist sources stand in strong contrast to the scholarly sources; they don't. Robert thinks that the release of dukkha is the sole goal of the Buddhist path, and that the end of rebirth is not a/the goal. He thinks that "ending rebirth" is a western scholarly re-interpretation, despite more than a dozen references + quotes (section "ending rebirth, note "Moksha", note "samudaya", note "Samsara", note "Nirodha"), from both scholarly sources and Buddhist sources, which say that the Buddhist "goal" implies both. To compare:

• Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta [15]: "But as soon as this [...] knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths [...] was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening [...] Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"
• Bhikkhu Bodhi (2011), The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering, p.10: "[the] elimination of craving culminates not only in the extinction of sorrow, anguish and distress, but in the unconditioned freedom of nibbana, which is won with the ending of reapeated rebirth."^[1]
• Keown (2009), Buddhism, p.65: "The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to put an end to suffering and rebirth."

Robert is persistent on this personal pov of him; his proposal for a pov-fork is to split off all the scholarly statements and info into a separate article, and revert the main article back to his preferred version. That's not an option.

Yet, you propose to do an RfC on forking "the branches"; given the above, what do you mean with "the branches"? A main article, giving an overview (compare Jesus, which gives "an overview of all perspectives"), and a subsidiary article with specific Theravada views (compare Jesus in Christianity)? Or something different (compare Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus)? A fork with the sole aim to present Robert's personal pov would not be a subpov, but a povfork. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by JJ to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: I see your point here, but I do not fully agree with you. We do not "[present] Buddhism [...] primarily [...] as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources"; we use secondary sources to present Buddhism as it seen by Budhists; in this, we do not restrict the sources to Buddhist scholars alone. The prime question is: do those sources give a reliable presentation? In addition, we also present scholarly studies on the history of Buddhism. After all, present views from within a religion can be different from past views; we do not exclude such a topic if there are no (reliable) sources by Buddhist scholars. To compare: for an article on the history of Christianity, we do not restrict ourselves to Christian historians, nor present only present-day views from Christians.

NB: Anderson and Batchelor are Buddhists; so are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Making a distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars won't solve Robert's problem with the ending of rebirth. See Bhikkhu Bodhi on rebirth and Thanissaro Bhikkhu on rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply by JJ to Robert Walker: the phrase "notes that" can easily be changed into "according to"; no objection to that, of course. The Four Noble Truths article already contains the line "While the Theravada-tradition holds the sutras to be the complete and accurate records of the teachings and sayings of the Buddha". This line was added by me, without a source; it can be referenced with and expanded on with your authors 9(though I would prefer a scholarly source, but alas; Prayudh Payutto seems to be as orthodox and indigenous as can be). See Talk:Pāli Canon#Carole Anderson for the "some reason" why I removed it: a painful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the source says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Procedural close.It is not a suitable topic for WP:DRN.Please move to WP:ANI to address the grievances. Winged Blades Godric 09:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Location of dispute Talk:Raheja Developers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sitush; Leoaugust; Tokyogirl (talk · contribs) Dispute overview hi This is further with reference to Wikipedia page of Raheja developers in India, I would like to inform you that the New York City wiki office has refused to take any responsibility of the content or deletion of my page and had asked to approach Wikipedia India. When I approached the President, Wikipedia India chapter, he too refused saying that he also does not have any control over the content or the server of the same. And refused out rightly to help in deletion of the page. Since then I have been running from pillar to post to find out who is responsible for this page. There are 2-3 wikipedia editors Sitush, tokyogirl and Leo August who have conflict of interest with Raheja Developers and are deliberately trying to malign and tarnish the image of the company. I have written proof in the email from leoaugust asking Rs. 40 lacs (4 million) who is trying to blackmail our company if the same is not paid.he is using your platform to do so. Request you to allow me send you the details of the proof confirming the same. Now can anyone please help me with finding the right contact in India for this page so that I am heard and my problem is addressed. I am requesting both the headquarters ( New York) and the India Chapter to provide me with the contact details of the person or forum with name, number and email id so that I approach them and resolve this issue for once and for all. I have been repeatedly requesting you all to delete my page and my trademark from there but in vain. Nobody is bothered to direct me to the right person. None of my mails get replied except the ones that says we are not responsible for any content up there. This doesn't work that way. I am once again summarizing what I want point wise: 1.Right contact with name, number and email ID 2.Deleting my trademark which is being used without our approval 3.Deleting my Wikipedia page completely Awaiting right guidance with right contact on my request from Wikipedia. Regards. Dimple Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have tried approaching the administrator through various mails, tweets and discussions on the talk page. My talk page is also kind of locked. i no more have access to the same.i approached India and the New york office but no body is helping in deletion of my page compeletly. the trademark used on the page is without my approval. the posts are negative and the references that are given are the website of the blackmailer who is a wikipedia editor. How do you think we can help? since i never want my trademark or my comapny name is misused by any such person quoted above, who have malafide intentions against us, I want complete deletion of my wikipedia page so that there is no more harassment, mental torture and physical stress. Summary of dispute by Sitush; Leoaugust; Tokyogirl Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Raheja Developers 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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Procedural close. No discussion. We can't take cases where there has been no discussion. Please see WP:DISCFAIL for options on what you can do. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Location of dispute User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doronenko (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made a small refinement on the page Electric fence about a lethal electric fence EZOH used in socialist Czechoslovakia as a part of Iron Curtain till 1965. So 1. I added the abbreviation – EZOH 2. I added an authoritative reference to it. This link contains a PDF-file made by the archive of Czech Ministry of the Interior (so government organization, highly reliable source). The language of this document is Czech. This information can help anyone who is interested in the Iron Curtain topic. Then the user MrOllie just reverted my commit without any clarification and without any notification. I asked him about the reason of this strange revert but he just ignored me. I don't want to start any Edit warring so can anyone help me? Seems MrOllie is not inclined to discuss his actions. Thanks in advance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked him on his Talk page and he just ignored it. How do you think we can help? Someone neutral should ask this user what was the reason of his revert and then we need to resolve it. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F 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.

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

The parties are having an active RFC on the talk page on the matter. Winged Blades Godric 17:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Filed by Crewcamel on 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC).[reply] Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Prcc27 (talk · contribs) Earthcent (talk · contribs) IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk · contribs) Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview TLDR: Im asking someone to step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or create a criteria for who's allowed on the page. Jeremy Gable (a small time playwright) is being included as a candidate in this article. I do not believe he has earned the respect necessary to be included. In accordance with WP:DUE i believe it is important that we refrain from granting him (and others) undue weight that they have not earned. A lot of editors disagree, they think we should include anyone with a wiki page who hints at a presidential run. If we followed that advice, we'd have to add Katy Perry, Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga among others. Please note that in March the article had ALL of these "candidates" and no one said anything because they didnt want to break the rules. MY POINT is that we need to draw a line somewhere for what merits inclusion. And "anyone who has a wiki" is not that line. If we don't the reliability of the page will be tarnished. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started an RFC about Jeremy Gable at the recommendation of some guy who was a moderator or something. Removed Jeremy Gable myself, got reverted. Questioned whether or not hes a natural born citizen or not. (hes born in england) How do you think we can help? 1. Step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or 2. Recommend a better criteria for who's allowed on the page. Summary of dispute by Prcc27 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Earthcent Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IOnlyKnowFiveWords Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vote 4 DJH2036 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F 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.

– New discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory#Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Eggishorn (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute on whether or not to include the origin of theories mentioned in the article. The article mentions conspiracy theorist claims of things such as satanic ritual abuse, pedophile symbols used in company logos, and handkerchief codes. However, the article fails to mention the origin or the reason behind these claims, except for the handkerchief codes claim. It explains that the handkerchief code claim arose from "a widely-cited email mentioning a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" however excludes any explanation for the satanic ritual abuse claim and pedophile symbols claim. This leaves a reader wondering whence the claims arose and any explanation of their origin is being opposed on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Participated in good faith discussion on the talk page to understand users' objections to including the explanations. Rebuttals ranged from asserting the source as unreliable (though could link to no RSN consensus indicating as such), and avoiding giving the claim any explanation so as to avoid lending it legitimacy. Though no WP policy could be cited for objections raised despite repeated requests.

How do you think we can help?

Please determine if statements included in reliable sources like the NYT can be included in the article. And if not, what specific WP policy supports their exclusion.

It is my understanding that DR is for cases where a genuine question of policy applicability exists, not a content issue that has been extensively discussed on the article talk page. All the information that Terrorist96 seeks is already available there and in talk page archives. It has yet to be established that there is a need for proceedings here. Especially as every other editor to comment has rejected T96's attempted changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Volunteer note: there's considerable discussion on the talk page for a dispute here. Filer is required to notify all concerned parties about the dispute on their talk pages individually. Optionally, the template {{DRN-notice}} could be used for this purpose. All participants must file a statement above within 48 hours of notification in at most one paragraph. Failure to do so will be taken as an indication that the editor does not wish to participate in this discussion. Participation is completely voluntary though. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I pinged them all on the article's talk page, but I'll post on each individual's talk page as well.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other parties on their talk pages. It should be noted that participation here is voluntary. It should also be noted that this topic is subject to ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. Also, no reliable source has attached any value to any version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so the only question is how to report on debunked statements and the fallacious backstories behind them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you for seeing the distinction. My intent is to solely include information on the origins of the theories so as to explain why they were claimed to begin with. I have no intention of arguing in favor or against the theories themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this has no merit, the article cannot use bad sources to try to explain or normalize a conspiracy theory. TheValeyard (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to RSN consensus that says The New York Times, Snopes, and The Inquisitor are "bad" sources? Thanks. Also please note that the handkerchief code claim is explained using the same NYT article I am trying to use.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. You would do better here if you put up-front the changes you wanted and didn’t exaggerate comments by other editors. No one in the discussion has suggested that the New York Times and Snopes are bad sources. Inquisitor is an aggregator and not an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Terrorist96: I understand this to be a good faith attempt to resolve something you wish to dispute, but your comments/questions are moving in the direction of forum shopping. Please read this policy and consider how best to move on from here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]