Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	27 days, 7 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	1 days, 12 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	1 days, 12 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	23 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 21 hours	Andrevan (t)	1 days, 21 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	18 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Nagging Prawn (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	14 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	Randomsalt (t)	2 hours
NDIS	Closed	ItsPugle (t)	10 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	2 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 23 hours	Bogazicili (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	3 hours	None	n/a	Titan2456 (t)	3 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 21:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Race and genetics

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by BlackHades on 20:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Race and genetics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• BlackHades (talk · contribs)
• Aprock (talk · contribs)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs)
• ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs)
• 84.61.181.253 (talk · contribs) (and other related dynamic IP addresses)

Dispute overview

The article Race and Genetics has a subsection entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." in which Lewontin's argument is that race has ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. Followed by support and criticism from others. It included criticism by Edwards, followed by Dawkins in which he agreed with Edwards' views against Lewontin. The text in question being:

Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Aprock has removed Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin six times claiming cherry picking. This is despite the fact that in the cited source Dawkins repeatedly stated Lewontin is wrong. Aprock reasoned by quoting Dawkins that race is difficult to define, in between genetic variance between races is small, and that racial classification is informative about physical characteristics. None of which counters Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin.

The argument that in between genetic variance between races is small has been acknowledged by both Edwards and Dawkins, and was already clearly stated as such in the article. In regards to Aprock reasons related to physical characteristics, I tried to address this by adding Dawkins' example of why he disagreed with Lewontin using physical characteristics which Aprock still removed again.

Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin meets WP:V and is certainly highly relevant to a section entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism.” I tried to work with Aprock in editing Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin but it seems Aprock is only interested in removal of the text regardless of what form it is in. When Aprock was given the opportunity to edit Dawkins' views on Lewontin the way he would personally want it he refuses.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensively discussed in talk for months.

How do you think we can help?

Hopefully help Aprock understand why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is noteworthy in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism." and work toward putting the reference back in the article.

Opening comments by Aprock

There's not much to say. We have a clear case of cherry picking. Any sane reading of the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale clearly shows that Dawkins' views on race are that it is not a generically significant attribute. That Dawkins takes issue with a literal interpretation Lewontin's work is only significant when presented in the broader context of the chapter, a suggestion which has yet to be considered by BlackHades and various like minded editors. aprock (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by The Devil's Advocate

I have not participated much in this dispute, but I took the time to read through the chapter as Aprock suggested and I still have to disagree with his claims of "cherry-picking" and "misrepresentation" as I expected I would. Dawkins takes a rather nuanced position, questioning the significance of the criteria we use to distinguish organisms (in fact, the name of the chapter is a reference to how different species of grasshopper are distinguished based on what would seem to be an incredibly trivial difference), but he doesn't reject these classifications like Lewontin. His position is very much that race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context. Naturally, he does not assign it the same significance as early eugenicists and does not approve of it being used in a social or cultural context, but the subject of the article is "race and genetics" not "race and culture" where such a position would be relevant. His position is straightforward that Lewontin is mistaken in characterizing race as an attribute of "virtually" no genetic significance. Dawkins is a qualified academic on the subject human genetics and noting his evaluation of the dispute seems pertinent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by ArtifexMayhem

The entire Lewontin's argument and criticism is just a coat-rack for cherry-picked material. The proposed Dawkins addition is pov pushing by omission — the pov being, as stated above, that "...race is a genetically significant attribute and should be used as a classification of people in a scientific context".

As I previously stated on the talk page Dawkins makes a few other points:

1. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
2. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
3. Racial classification is informative about "no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness — nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
4. The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
5. Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

Neither Edwards or Dawkins make the claim that race is a genetically significant attribute. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 84.61.181.253

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Talk:Race and genetics discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am now opening this up for discussion. Sorry for the delay; I wanted to make sure I had time to give this my full attention.

Possibly related pages:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

Human genetic clustering

Race and genetics

Race and health

Ethnicity and health

Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated by The Devil's Advocate, I strongly disagree on the argument of cherry picking. If you look through "The Grasshopper's Tale", Dawkins goes completely out of the way to criticize Lewontin. It's not like it's a single line that's being taking out of context. Dawkins goes into great detail to explain why Lewontin is wrong and Edwards is right repeatedly through several pages and cites specific examples. From pg 406-410 in "The Ancestor's Tales". Just like Edwards, Dawkins does agree with Lewontin in that there is more variation within racial groups than in between racial groups but Dawkins makes it very clear that Lewontin is wrong to suggest that this means race has "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance".

I'm more than willing and welcome the discussion on how best to summarize Dawkins criticism of Lewontin in accordance with WP:NPOV but unfortunately we're unable to even have such a discussion because of the constant attempt and assertion that Dawkins doesn't belong in the article at all. Despite the fact that Dawkins goes into such painstaking detail and highlights specific examples through several pages to explain arguments by Lewontin and Edwards. Dawkins' argument and criticism of Lewontin should belong in a subsection entitled “Lewontin's argument and criticism”.

I would also like to note that Dawkins position on Lewontin has existed in Race and Genetics for years without dispute and currently exists in Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy without dispute. I would certainly welcome the discussion on what the most appropriate way to summarize Dawkins position on Lewontin is. But to assert that Dawkins argument on Lewontin doesn't belong in the article at all? This seems so absurd. BlackHades (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worth observing here that the article is Race and genetics, not Lewontin's Fallacy. To the extent that Dawkin's views merit inclusion here, it's his views on race and genetics which are relevant not his views on a literal interpretation of Lewontin's claims. That the later is being pushed into the article without consideration of the former is a classic example of the sort of misuse of sources that was rife in WP:ARBR&I. aprock (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The subsection is entitled "Lewontin's argument and criticism". So anything in this subsection should be specifically related to that point. If you feel Dawkins' wider views on race and genetics should be included elsewhere in the article, that would be a completely separate topic of discussion. But as far as the subsection "Lewontin's argument and criticism", only statements specifically regarding Lewontin should be in this section which includes Dawkins. There's no reason to omit Dawkins here. BlackHades (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Passing by DRN volunteer here; after this came up the other day I skimread my way through The Grasshoppers Tail (Though I have read the chapter and book in its entirety previously). I mostly agree with Black Hades / The Devil's Advocate summary of the topic. Essentially Dawkin's point is that races are very similar, but also that race is an important indicator for specific traits (other than superficial exterior changes). Dawkins uses examples such as if you were to pick a running team from the fastest runners in the world, its going to almost definately be an all-african team. (Though other examples definately exist such as lactose intolerance, etc.). Just my 2c worth. I might offer some further comments on the topic at some point, but Guy Macon will be taking the lead here. -- Nbound (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's even more interesting than that; the majority of the trop long-distance runners come from three mountainous districts beside the Rift Valley: Nandi in Kenya, and Arsi and Shewa in Ethiopia.[1][2] On the other hand, we do need to recognize that there have historically been attempts to use pseudoscience to "prove" the superiority of whichever race the "prover" belongs to. The movie "Django Unchained" has a classic example of a racist slave owner using phrenology as a pseudoscientific and self-serving justification for slavery. Obviously nobody here holds such a position, but we need to watch to make sure that such discredited ideas -- or the equally discredited idea that there are zero differences between groups of human beings -- haven't subtly influenced otherwise reliable sources.

Getting back to the issue at hand, let's examine the "cherry picking" claim. I always like to try to get each side to understand the other, For those who think there has been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? For those who think there has not been cherry picking, how do you explain the fact that multiple apparently rational editors think you are wrong? Try this: write up a paragraph saying "here is what I think the best reasons for believing the position that opposes mine are". Post it here without any criticism or rebuttal and wait until your opponent does the same. Then after you do that, repeat with "here are what I think are the best reasons for rejecting my position", once again without rebuttal. Then go back to the normal advocacy of your preferred position. Doing this can be a real eye-opener. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by JennKR on 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Beyonce Knowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Beyonce Knowles (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• JennKR (talk · contribs)
• Aichik (talk · contribs)
• 76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Aichik's edit (here) asserts that Knowles "copied liberally" from 3 European artists, citing a source for only 1 assertion. Not only do I think that this wording contravenes WP:NPOV, I see the information as wrongly placed in the "Public image" section. Here, relevant criticism of the BLP is made in line with her portrayal in the media; whereas the three instances refer to criticism for the artist's music videos. Two instances are already discussed on Wikipedia (Run The World (Girls)#Controversy and Countdown (Beyoncé Knowles song)#Controversy) in which a discussion of the instances is more informed and neutral. In both, the reports that she copied was made, but also the artist responded saying she viewed and was inspired by both pieces. The current "Public image" section asserts that other artists have copied Knowles, and although in part referring to public image, I think this should also be removed as it deviates from the purpose of the section; which is ultimately her public reception and not critique of her work.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on the talk page and through user talk pages.

How do you think we can help?

Advice and mediation.

Opening comments by Aichik

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Opening comments by 76.189.109.155

First, I have absolutely no interest in this DR discussion, nor do I really understand why it was started. It looks like Aichik, who I don't even know, hasn't edited the article in several days (although I have no idea, nor do I care, what their past involvement in it has been). My only purpose in commenting in the article's talk page discussion, as I made clear there, was to give my thoughts on whether Aichik's sources were reliable or not, since they were being scrutinized. I see that Aichik participated in that discussion prior to my comments, and hasn't made any changes to the article since then. So, again, I'm confused as to why this DR was started, instead of just continuing the discussion on the article's talk page. As the DRN instructions above say, "Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page...to work out the issues before coming to DRN". As I said in my final comment at the talk page, "If there's disagreement, consensus will have to decide what belongs, and where." In any case, I don't care one bit about this content or placement issue. So with that, I'm out of this. Good luck. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyonce Knowles discussion

Hello, I am Smileguy91, a dispute resolution volunteer. JennKR, please clarify 76.189.109.155's role in this situation. smileguy91^talk 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello! A volunteer added him to this DRN request after seeing his input on the talk page where he clarified how blogs may be used as reliable sources. He then concluded that as this is a content issue, he wanted no part in the DRN discussion. —JennKR | ☎ 10:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Capoeira

– New discussion.

Filed by Danilolabbate on 00:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Danilolabbate (talk · contribs)
• unregistered member (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unregistered member making wrong statement in the begining of the article, and backing it with an absolutely out-of-context reference.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried using the article's talk, got no answer. Can't contact other user directly, as he's an unregistered user.

How do you think we can help?

The most important thing, as the article talks about a somewhat polemic part of Brazilian culture, I believe it's edition should be limited to registered members only.

Also, mediation in the "talk" section might help, although the other user failed to answer my last message.

Opening comments by unregistered member

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

Capoeira discussion

Have you invited this member to the discussion via their talk page? The IP address should be added instead of "unregistered member" above aswell -- Nbound