|
=Current disputes=
== Algeria ==
== New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico ==
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|Alamo NM|19:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed due to lack of notice. The filing editor was advised three days ago that they need to notify the other editor, but has not provided that notice because they have taken a wikibreak after filing this case. It isn't helpful to file a case and then take a break from editing,but that is a detail. If there are any remaining issues, resume discussion on the article talk page. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 21:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|New Mexico State University}}
* {{pagelinks|University of New Mexico}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Alamo NM}}
* {{User|ElKevbo}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
There is discussion over official flagship status has is now verging on bullying.
Good faith efforts, to note the lack of official flagship status in the state (a fact) and lack of consensus, are being consistently ignored by ElKevbo without any sense of community.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
[[Talk:New_Mexico_State_University]]
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
Determine the approach nature of Wikipedia to determine facts without legal basis.
==== Summary of dispute by ElKevbo ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
=== New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer Note''' - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Please provide notice to the other editor. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}
== Genesis creation narrative ==
{{DR case status|resolved}}
{{drn filing editor|Violoncello10104|18:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed. The filing editor says that they are satisfied, after discussion. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Genesis creation narrative}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Violoncello10104}}
* {{User|ViolanteMD}}
* {{User|Tgeorgescu}}
* {{User|Bishonen}}
* {{User|Doug_Weller}}
* {{User|Joshua Jonathan}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
The article prominently contains certain conclusions of critical scholarship which are stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution to show that they originate in the perspective of critical scholarship. On the 30th of August, I edited attribution to critical scholarship for these statements on the grounds of WP:NPOV. The same day, Bishonen undid my edit, with the summary 'Undo unsourced POV additions', and tgeorgescu posted on my talk page stating that my edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. I undid Bishonen's edit, because I did not make any unsourced POV additions. I raised this point to tgeorgescu who replied that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream vs. fringe. Tgeorgescu responded with quotes from critical scholars outlining the fundamentals of critical scholarship. I responded that not all biblical scholars would accept these points (and further they actually represented controversial and contested theses, in the terminology of WP:WIKIVOICE, therefore they should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice). I gave a quote from a critical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who speaks on this issue. Doug Weller let me know that I should make a talk page post about this, which I did (linked in 'Resolving the dispute'). ViolanteMD expressed agreement with my proposed NPOV edits, and also gave some further argumentation which I also agree with, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Bishonen, tgeorgescu and Doug Weller are convinced that we misunderstand WP:NPOV. We allege that the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#This_article_contains_bias_towards_critical_scholarship
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
I would appreciate if my original argument, the first post in the topic, could be evaluated, which I do not believe has occurred so far despite so much debate unfortunately. Especially the views of Ehrman should be addressed, whose practice I believe we should conform to in applying WP:NPOV. In addition, a review of the dispute in general and the quality of the arguments, to determine the course of action going forward regarding the article.
==== Summary of dispute by ViolanteMD ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
{{tqred|e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic}}—ridiculous: nobody in the mainstream academia (i.e. mainstream historians) believes that the Mosaic authorship is an even remotely tenable view of the Bible. Mosaic authorship falls under [[WP:FRINGE]] as patent [[pseudohistory]]. I'm not saying that JEDP is the only scholarly way of making sense of the Bible, but the Mosaic authorship isn't a plausible way. It's dead in the water in the mainstream academia. That is, the consensus that the Pentateuch was compiled from four large documents, each coherent on its own, is crumbling, but no historian worth his salt believes that Moses wrote a jot of the Bible.
If you need scholarly voices to that extent, watch the series [[Patterns of Evidence]]. I enjoyed it very much, but I kept in my mind that:
* it's fundie propaganda;
* it overtly seeks to give the lie to mainstream history, mainstream archaeology, mainstream linguistics, and so on.
The film opposes every Bible expert who knows what he/she is talking about. The film is worth seeing because it very clearly and honestly defines what it is opposing.
I'm not sure what they are asking, I suppose they have an axe to grind against the [[WP:RULES]], but [[WP:DRN]] is not the venue for changing the [[WP:RULES]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
==== Summary of dispute by Bishonen ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
I don't think I will take part. For one thing, I'm not any too interested in theology nor in Biblical criticism, and for another, it's a bit of a mistake to list me here, since the DRN rules above state that the preliminary talkpage discussion should normally have "more than one post by each editor". That's not the case for me; I've posted one time on talk. But I do believe {{u|Joshua Jonathan}}, who has now posted extensively on talk and has also edited the article quite substantially, should be listed here. (Their absence from the list is no fault of Violoncello10104's, since JJ only just turned up at the article. But they could surely help.) I thought of adding JJ myself to "Users involved", but I'm not sure that would be permitted. This noticeboard calls itself "an ''informal'' place", but the vibe it gives off is actually quite rules-heavy and bureaucratic IMO. [[WP:CREEP|Instruction creep]]? Anyway, JJ, whether or not you get listed, I hope you will take part. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC).
==== Summary of dispute by Doug_Weller ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
I'm not participating. It would be a waste of my time and energy, both of which I have little, ie for the future and today. Others have already said what I believe to be the case. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
=== Genesis creation narrative discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Genesis)===
On the one hand, I am ready to act as a moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. On the other hand, I am not sure that there will be moderated discussion, because I am not sure that two editors will agree. Please read [[WP:DRN Rule D|DRN Rule D]] . If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that the topic is a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] because the [[Genesis creation narrative]] is considered [[pseudoscience]] if taken as a historical account. If you agree to the rules, please also read [[WP:ARBPSCI|the ArbCom ruling]] that [[pseudoscience]] is a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]].
One editor appears to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is required, except for the editor who has already replied.
Any editor who wants to take part in dispute resolution is also asked to answer one question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
We will begin discussion when two editors make statements about what the article content dispute is.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I agree to DRN Rule D. I have notified the other three editors. I understand that the Genesis creation narrative is a contentious topic because as a historical account, it would be considered pseudoscience by the majority of the ''scientific community'' (in the wording of the ArbCom ruling). While Genesis as history may be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia's voice solely on the basis of [[WP:MAINSTREAM]] with respect to the current scientific community, authorship and consistency are an entirely different question, and to do with history and literary analysis.
:<br>''Statement of article content dispute:'' [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] states that 'Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'. According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. Please see my original post in the talk page for the full quote (source: [https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/]). For reference, traditional scholars universally say that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are not inconsistent and often deny the conception of composite authorship. Therefore, we propose that Wikipedia should not state the critical claims in its voice, but attribute them to critical scholarship ([[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]]). Furthermore, the current article misleads readers into believing that critical claims have widespread acceptance among Christians and Jews, when the opposite is the case.
:<br>According to Bishonen, tgeorgescu and presumably Doug Weller, this would give false balance to pseudohistory ([[WP:GEVAL]]), since non-critical views are fringe. However, this is not how mainstream academics such as Ehrman regard non-critical views; 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not' (Ibid.). Here Ehrman states that it is possible for a non-critical scholar to make an argument in support of a traditional/non-critical Christian view which must then be accepted by a critical scholar. [[User:Violoncello10104|Violoncello10104]] ([[User talk:Violoncello10104|talk]]) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that the talkpage discussion is not exhausted because of @[[User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]]'s contribution. So I think the DR should be suspended for at least some time. Also, it seems that tgeorgescu's participation is contingent on Doug Weller and Bishonen but they are not interested. Thank you very much for your time and contribution to this! [[User:Violoncello10104|Violoncello10104]] ([[User talk:Violoncello10104|talk]]) 22:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
::I do not want to be the only editor on "my" side. So, my acceptance depends upon whether either Bishonen or Doug Weller will join DRN.
::Also, the belief that the Pentateuch has only one author is pseudohistory, see e.g. {{cite book | editor-last1=Skolnik | editor-first1=Fred | editor-last2=Berenbaum | editor-first2=Michael | editor3=Thomson Gale (Firm) | title=Encyclopaedia Judaica | year=2007 | isbn=0-02-865943-0 | oclc=774684287 | url=http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/70174939.html | first1=Richard Elliott | last1=Friedman | first2=Shawna | last2=Dolansky Overton | chapter=Pentateuch | edition=2nd | volume=15 | page=734 | chapter-url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/bible/old-testament/pentateuch | quote=From the 11th to the 21st centuries, however, scholars have been expressing doubts about Mosaic authorship. At present, except for Ortychodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe in Mosaic authorship as a matter of faith, no scholar on earth holds that Moses – or any one person – was the recorder of the Torah.}} You'll find the full article at encyclopedia.com .
{{reflist-talk}}
[[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
===Zeroth statements by editors (Genesis)===
I think that the talkpage-discussion is not exhausted yet, nor are the options available at the page itself. I've created a section [[:Genesis creation narrative#Interpretation of the creation narrative]] where alternative interpretationd couls be added; alternatively, relevant alternative views could also be added to the subsections on "Authorship and dating" and "Two stories." Yet, it's not clear to me what content is contested; from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_creation_narrative&diff=1243141600&oldid=1237781917 these edits] by Violoncello10104, and their summary of the dispute, I gather the following:
* Authorship and dating:
:* the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
:* separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ("Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
:* the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
* Mesopotamian influence:
:* borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
:* the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
* Sixth day:
:* the interpretation of "God says "Let ''us'' make man."
I'm wondering, though, about the statement {{tq|the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.}} Controversial according to whom? This has not been explained yet at the talkpage, not have alternative views been proposed; so there has been no option yet to evaluate what exactly is "controversial and contested," and if such alternative views have to receive due weight. So maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I've evaluated these points; see [[Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Arbitrary header #2]]; I see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [[user:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]], and [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]]. Regards, [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 17:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
:No doubt Ehrman is an academic authority. But is he an authority about the [[WP:RULES]] of Wikipedia?
:While JEDP are somewhat contested in the mainstream academia, scholars agree that we can at least speak of a difference between Priestly and non-Priestly, with the Deutoronomistic History added to the book. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
===First statement by possible moderator (Genesis)===
It does not appear that the situation is ready for moderated discussion at this time, so I will leave this thread in hold, and will comment briefly.
I have added [[User:Joshua Jonathan]], and I thank him for his comments, and I suggest that the other editors follow his lead in discussing on the article talk page in a new section.
I will address [[User:Bishonen]] briefly. Her comment about formality is well taken. The statement that DRN is an informal lightweight place has been there for more than a decade. This forum has become more structured, now that it is the last content stop before [[WP:RFC|RFC]], and instead too often the last stop before [[WP:ANI]] or a misguided [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]]. We no longer have either the [[WP:MEDCOM|Mediation Committee]] or the [[WP:MEDCAB|Mediation Cabal]], so this noticeboard does the work that was previously done by those mediation groups. I have found that rules are often necessary because disputes come to [[WP:DRN|DRN]] after the editors have personalized them, and it is necessary to impose structure to separate content from conduct (and not discuss conduct).
If Bishonen, or anyone else, has any suggestions either for streamlining some or all disputes here, or for another forum in addition to this one and [[WP:3O|Third Opinion]], I and others would be glad to see them, maybe at [[WP:VPI|the Idea Lab]], or the [[WT:DRN|DRN talk page]].
On the one hand, [[User:Violoncello10104]] has not really answered my question in two ways. First, their answer is not really concise. Second, their answer isn't really about what they want to change in the article. On the other hand, I will try to summarize what I think that they are saying. I think that we really have a disagreement as to what can be viewed as the range of mainstream scholarship in Biblical criticism, including of the Genesis creation narrative. The issue is whether the mainstream includes [[Bart Ehrman]] at the "left" and Mosaic authorship at the "right", or is more restricted to what Violoncello10104 calls critical scholarship. Within critical scholarship, it is agreed that the Pentateuch was assembled from various sources, although the JEDP documentary hypothesis is no longer the leading theory within that viewpoint. [[Bart Ehrman]] is not within the tradition of critical scholarship, but is outside it on one side, and is calling for a broader concept of the mainstream that includes both Ehrman and the ultra-traditionalists. So what Violoncello10104 is arguing for is not necessarily any specific changes to the article, but a more expansive concept of mainstream scholarship.
If that is what [[User:Violoncello10104]] is saying, then this dispute is not exactly about article content, but about sources and scholarship, and more discussion on the article talk page, as outlined by [[User:Joshua Jonathan]], is in order.
If anyone has any specific issues about changes to the wording of the article, please state them concisely.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
:Hello, thank you very much for your help and apologies for the excessive length of my statements. @[[User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] and I have resolved the issue through consensus and compromise in the talk page of the article, so I consider this issue resolved. [[User:Violoncello10104|Violoncello10104]] ([[User talk:Violoncello10104|talk]]) 15:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
===First statements by editors (Genesis)===
{{DRN archive bottom}}
== Algeria ==
{{DR case status}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1728316152}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Lord Ruffy98|15:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed as no response. Three days after the filing editor notified the other editors on their talk pages, none of them have responded. Some of them have not edited in the past three days. The filing editor has raised an issue that is worth discussing. Resume discussion on the article talk page about the use of Berber for names in the article. If it is difficult to get a response on the article talk page, consider discussing at a Wikiproject talk page, in particular, [[WT:WikiProject Algeria|WikiProject Algeria]]. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here later. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
* '''Volunteer note''': The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please notify the involved editors on their user talk pages. [[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] ([[User talk:Kovcszaln6|talk]]) 17:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
* '''Volunteer note''': None of the notified editors have responded by summarizing their views in the appropriate "Summary of dispute by" section, so I'm wondering: who would be interested in participating in a discussion here? [[User:Kovcszaln6|Kovcszaln6]] ([[User talk:Kovcszaln6|talk]]) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}
== Eudora (email client)Yasuke ==
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|Hugh TurdmuncherTinynanorobots|2115:0343, 914 September 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed. as alsoThere pendingare ina anotherfew forumproblems with this filing. TheFirst, the filing editor has not notified any of the other editors. Second, the filing editor has filedmisspelled the names of three of the editors. Third, the question may be an issue about the [[WP:RS|reliability of a source]]. If so, the issue can be better answered at [[WP:RSN|the reliable source noticeboard]]. Fourth, there is an [[WP:RFC|RFC]] in progress. It is not clear whether the topic of this DRN request foris related to the topic of the RFC. If this is a question about the reliability of a source, file a request at [[WP:3ORSN|Thirdthe reliable source Opinionnoticeboard]]. PleaseOtherwise, waitresume fordiscussion at the Thirdarticle talk Opinionpage. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 2120:3000, 914 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Eudora (email client)Yasuke}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Hugh TurdmuncherTinynanorobots}}
* {{User|TuxmanYvan Part}}
* {{User|Symphony Regalia}}
* {{User|Green Caffeine}}
* {{User|Eiríkr Útlendi}}
* {{User|Rotary Engine}}
* {{User|Gitz}}
* {{User|Brocade River Poems}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
The dispute is about whether newssources should be used when there are better ones available, in line with [[HISTRS]]. One side believes that all WP:RS are equal and inline citations should be added to the lead for WEIGHT or for reader interest. Specifically, an article on CNN Travel is contentious, because some editors believe it contains errors. These errors are points where it contradicts Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica author is the same expert that is cited in all the news sources. All sources refer to Yasuke as a samurai, and therefore are in agreement with a RfC that took place before the dispute started. The various editors have different views on how weight is calculated, but neither would challenge the RfC in this editor’s opinion. The news articles have been cited inline for different claims during the dispute, but the CNN article has mostly been used to support the claim that "Yasuke received a house, a sword and a stipend". The CNN attributes this to a Jesuit source, which is probably a typo. The Britannica article links it to Ōta Gyūichi. Other secondary sources confirm this, as it is rather easy to list all sources that mention Yasuke. Tinynanorobots considers the claim uncontroversial, but some editors have disputed it (mainly based on the CNN article). There is a slight disagreement between the sources, that could cause a slight change to the text of the Wikipedia article, but it is not necessitated. Thus, it would be possible to handle both issues separately, and also stay compliant with the RfC.
I am trying to restructure this article taking into account the fact that Eudora is no longer a "defunct" e-mail client and hasn't been for several years. It has undergone a minor name change, to "Eudoramail", and the ''current'' trademark holder has essentially said that this new iteration of Eudora 7 constitutes a reasonable approximation of "continuing development". I have sourced every statement (not just the controversial ones), though a lot of the discussions with stakeholders (the trademark holder, the current developer—who is ''not'' the same as the trademark holder—and other customers) took place via e-mail round robins. A web page is, I am given to understand, in development and will go live shortly (the project's Indiegogo page has been used as an impromptu web page). There is also a link to the blog entry of a prominent Wellington typographer, [[Jack Yan]], and he's furnished a review where he says that this is the same Eudora. Taken on its own, this new iteration of Eudora ''may'' or ''may not'' meet notability criteria. Taken together with E7, it ''definitely'' does.
Qualcomm, Eudora's ''former'' developer and ''former'' trademark holder, also bankrolled a continuation (which they did not develop) in the past. While '''in beta''', it was called Eudora 8 (logically enough), but it had nothing to do with Eudora 7 in the past, was quickly renamed to [[Eudora OSE]], and got shitcanned after one release. There are also mentions of Pandora on the main Eudora article; Pandora is an entirely different mail client, one that shares nothing in common with '''any''' of the respective iterations of Eudora.
I am trying to disambiguate between these various pieces of software, but my efforts are being stymied by Tuxman's persistent rollbacks. While I admit some of his criticisms have merit, and I will seek additional sources and once again raise the issue of an externally-hosted project Web page, the current iteration of the Wikipedia page is misinforming people.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
I have tried to discuss the issue with those who disagreed. For most of the time, it was just Regalia Symphony, who disagreed, so I thought there was a consensus at multiple points. I didn’t have much success. At first, I thought that Regalia had too high a trust in media, but then I realized that he believed that truth didn’t matter, so I tried to discuss policy with him, and tried to show the faults of the CNN article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#The_lead
[[Talk:Eudora (email client)]]
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
If you could help us find a consensus, even if it involves a compromise, that would be great. I suspect that the two editors that disagree have concerns that they only directly hint at. If they could be assured that using better sources not only allowed, but will strengthen the case that Yasuke is a samurai, then I think we could all be in agreement.
I would appreciate if someone would assist us to come to consensus as to what is and is not allowed on the Wikipedia page. Saying that Eudora ended development in 2008—'''PERIOD!!!—is misinformation. There does not have to be a link to the Indiegogo page if that would constitute advertising, but given that it has been used as the main point of contact and project page, it would make sense to include it. The mentions of Eudora OSE and Aurora can stay but NPOV reg. timelines.
==== Summary of dispute by TuxmanYvan Part ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Symphony Regalia ====
=== Eudora (email client) discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Green Caffeine ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Eiríkr Útlendi ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Rotary Engine ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Gitz ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
==== Summary of dispute by Brocade River Poems ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
=== Yasuke discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
{{DRN archive bottom}}
== Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) ==
{{DR case status}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 10:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1728813637}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Crawdaunt|10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader)}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Crawdaunt}}
* {{User|Desertarun}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>
I declared a very very loose COI in good faith, and this has led to an issue with the articles' original writer who is disqualifying all my comments and accusing me of [[WP:CANVASSING]] when I have not, and opening formal move proposals in my name when I have not. If someone would be willing to just chime in and watch, I think there's perfectly reasonable discussion to be had here. But any further attempts by me to encourage [[WP:NEUTRAL]] tone are not going to be helpful on their own.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
Extensive civil discussion with the user, on the Talk page itself. The tone of the civil discussion isn't nasty by any means, but there is a clear impasse.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
The user @Desertarun opened a formal Requested Move in my name when I did not propose a specific requested move. Please close this, as I have not requested this move. All I requested was conversation with external viewpoints included, such that when I might* propose a requested move, it already had some consensus as to how best to title articles per [[WP:CRITERIAORDER]].
==== Summary of dispute by Desertarun ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The dispte is over a requested move. That discussion is taking place here;[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Baker_(slave_trader)#Requested_move_15_September_2024]]. Having the dispute in two different places is non-sensical, so I won't be engaging with the process on this page any further. [[User:Desertarun|Desertarun]] ([[User talk:Desertarun|talk]]) 13:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
=== Talk:Peter Baker (slave trader) discussion ===
* FYI. I have commented on the discussion and attempted to identify the points of disagreement. These all appear to be content, not conduct, issues. I am not a DRN volunteer per se, though I may be willing to help the users deal with their disagreements. [[User:ProfGray|ProfGray]] ([[User talk:ProfGray|talk]]) 04:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
| 