Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 53
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
White Terror (Russia)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct, not content, dispute. This noticeboard is not for conduct disputes. Consider WP:SPI, WP:RFC/U, WP:EW, or WP:SPI, as and if appropriate. If you have disputes over specific content edits, please feel free to relist here, being specific and limiting your content to edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview EverlastingGaze under at least two identities is trying to write crude Bolshevik propaganda and refuses even the most modest amendments to "his" precious article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I appealed three times to the NPOV page and several times on the Russia Group Talk page, to no effect. How do you think we can help? EverlastingGaze needs to be told firmly that he does not own the White Terror article and to edit from a NPOV and to accept incremental improvements to the page. Alternatively, best to delete all and start fresh.
Opening comments by InformedContentPlease 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 CwmacdougallPlease 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 EverlastingGazePlease 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 75.51.167.249 (same as EverlastingGaze?)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 Darkness Shines (same as EverlastingGaze?)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.
White Terror discussionPlease 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.
|
Deftones
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus almost done, discussion will be held on talk page. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Trascendence removed nu metal from the article claiming consensus without one existing. Discussions began on the talk page where myself, Fezmar9 and WesleyDodds agreed that it should be included due to the published sources already included in the article in support. Trascendence provided some sources, 7 against, while I found 22 sources in favour. When the discussion went stale (Trascendence hadn't edited the article in 17-18 days) I restored the genre. However, he has since reverted the changes and started another discussion, claiming they go against policy. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Multiple discussions on the article talk page. How do you think we can help? Helping to put to bed a topic that has been done to death. Consensus is clearly in favour with evidence provided. Trascendence has also been involved in a number of genre-only topics regarding Deftones. [1] [2] Opening comments by TrascendencePlease 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.
This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved, it lasted two weeks, one week ago Hrz brought sources that aparently supported nu metal, but he stated that he haven't read all of them, and that when he did so, we will weight the sources to see who has the final word.[3] However he didn't weighted the sources as himself said, neither discussed it further, he just came and added nu metal again, because i have many verifiable sources that refute the idea of the band playing that genre I removed it again. That's the reason of the actual discussion. Anyway, I already balanced the sources, with the result being against nu metal 6#Nu_metal_again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trascendence (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Fezmar9Please 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.
I think we've been far too civil, lenient and patient with Trascendence. Genre debates with this user go as far back as April 2012[4] and continue today. We have plainly and clearly explained why his edits are against various policies for the last six months. His opinions about what Deftones' genre is boarders on a fringe theory—no mainstream publications or articles agree with his claims, only minor opinion pieces. While I personally hear a lot of other genres in their music, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming and widely held belief that Deftones is a nu-metal band. There is a clear consensus among editors of Deftones who understand wiki policy and guidelines that it makes sense for nu-metal to be listed in the infobox. The real heart of the issue here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by WesleyDoddsPlease 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.
I came into the talk page genre debates that have been occurring on Deftones kind of sideways. I have barely edited the article and have no vested interest in what the band is referred to as (also, in my opinion debating over what goes into the infobox is small fry, for the infobox is intended to be a summary of the article's contents anyway). In this debate and the previous one about post-metal, one of my main goals has be to try to guide everyone to means of finding suitable sources to back up their viewpoints. I have tried my best to deal with everyone in good faith, but I feel it's become more and more apparent that Transcendence is primarily focused on pushing and enforcing his point of view on the article, even if no one else agrees with him (which no one has). Furthermore, he has misrepresented sources he provides to back up his viewpoint (my most recent post on the talk page addresses this), he brushes aside our comments about the quality of those sources he provides and focuses instead on the overall number (which under scrutiny becomes a smaller number), wrongly invokes WP:CON in what appear to me to be attempts to game the system, and with the statement above where he says "This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved" he's either grossly misunderstanding what occurred or outright lying, as I never agreed with him, and in fact pointed that out to him on the talk page already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Deftones discussionPlease 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.
Saluts and welcome to DRN. As far as I see, the main issue here is the addition/removal of the "nu metal" music genre from the Deftones article. Also, I see some civility comments over Trascendence. We will be solving the first issue here by now. From what I read above, seems like Trascendence understood (?) that he was uncorrectly adding the genre and now he removed it. I checked the article and this seems to be solved. Is this solved by now? Or there is any other action or issue to be analyzed? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear, I'm going to refrain from further discussion on the article talk page and instead comment here until this matter is settled, as I don't see us resolving the deadlock without the aid of a third party. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I also want to point out to any dispute resolution volunteers who wade into this debate that I take issue with Trascendence's attempt to shut down discussion in his favor while this dispute resolution is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Guy Fawkes#Addition_of_V_for_Vendetta_Reference
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Prior discussion is not extensive, only a day old. xanchester (t) 03:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I inserted a reference to the movie V for Vendetta on the Guy Fawkes page. This was quickly removed. I then started a section on the Talk page, and asked that people discuss the matter there, rather than remove the reference. However, an edit war resulted, with little discussion of the matter on the relevant section on the talk page. This resulted in me getting a ban, so as per wikipedia guidelines, and to avoid further edit warring, I have opened this WP:DR
As mentioned, tried to get some discussion with Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom on the relevant section on the talk page, with little luck. I have posted in two other editors talk pages who I have seen have been involved in the discussion previously, asking them for comment. I've also looked at the history of the discussion int he archives. How do you think we can help? I think anything that could get some mediation and talk happening between the editors involved, and to get some discussion happening rather than just a constant edit war. Thanks for your help. Opening comments by Malleus FatuorumPlease 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 Parrot of DoomPlease 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.
Comment by ~uninvolved Kiefer.WolfowitzThere has been an extensive discussion of the comic/film in the archive, and you may try to understand that the writers of the article are tired of discussing old business. In similar cases, editors of featured articles are more likely to respond if you seem to have read the archives and make a new argument for including a discussion of the comic/film. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Explanation by "Christ on a bike is this argument still going on?" IridescentThe issue here (which is poorly explained in the previous discussions) is that Wikipedia isn't in the business of literary value judgements. The Gunpowder Plot is one of the formative events in English history; and thus by extension world history—17th-century England as a Roman Catholic Spanish puppet-state would have meant no United States, no British Empire, and probably no Treaty of Westphalia and thus no concept of "nation" as distinct from "realm". Because of this, it's very widely embedded in English and English-speaking culture, of which V for Vendetta is a relatively insignificant part. Because it's not down to Wikipedia to decide which literary works are relevant to readers, an in-popular-culture section needs either to include the whole of Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, or none of it. (The festival of Guy Fawkes Night is an exceptional case, as that's a 400-year-old widely celebrated festival which largely shapes modern perceptions of Fawkes.) In cases like Daniel Lambert where the popular-culture element is small enough to be manageable this is practical, but incorporating every significant cultural depiction of Fawkes would swamp the article, while incorporating V4V without giving equal weight to Guy Fawkes (novel) or Equivocation (play) is a value-judgment of the type that's inappropriate on a project that tries to be neutral. By (re)adding the section the coverage is tilted away from WP:NPOV, and thus however good-intentioned can reasonably be construed as disruption. – iridescent 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
If the case is such as above, and we could be looking at a situation where the play and the novel are not included, while V for Vendetta is, why not include *the main items* in a section on "Guy Fawkes in popular culture"?. The spirit of Wikipedia is to include all viewpoints, so people can make up their own minds, not too exclude them because they may offend...and I think this extends to cultural works that reflect on the nature of a person. IMDB lists 11 productions that feature Guy Fawkes....but clearly they aren't all major productions, don't all have the same cultural significance, and all 11 don't need to be listed. Same with the novel and the play. The reality is - people will continue to come to this page and add V for Vendetta to it, expecting it to be there - as I did. It's a natural inclusion (as is also the novel and the play...but V for Vendetta is probably more well known because of its recency). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Guy Fawkes#Addition_of_V_for_Vendetta_Reference discussionPlease 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.
This case should be closed; the prior discussion is only a day old and is not extensive. Although consensus can change, the argument has been not to include the popular culture reference because of due weight. Guy Fawkes is a significant historical figure. V for Vendetta, the comic book that spawned the Hollywood movie that spawned the internet meme, is only indirectly related to the actual historical figure, and is already adequately covered in the Guy Fawkes in popular culture article. Highlighting it in the main Guy Fawkes article gives the popular culture reference too much weight over other cultural depictions of the subject. I hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
|
East Coast of the United States
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion has stalemated and is going in circles. Only one party is participating. Suggest that parties initiate an WP:RFC to get more input. Noleander (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview User Hoppingalong seems to think that every clause and every sentence needs an inline citation. This can be shown with the current (11:47PM EST) version of the East Coast article, every sentence under the introduction has an inline citation, as that's all that Hoppingalong will accept. He will delete any information without a citation, and will support IP vandals who delete entire sections of information without any stated reason. This statement can be supported by looking at the revision history of the East Coast article. Meanwhile, I am trying to bring forward old information that has been deleted in 2009 and 2012 by IP users with no stated reason. Hoppingalong has blocked and undone my every move. I have undone deletions by the IP users, who stated no reasons, but I have not undone any of Hoppingalong's changes. He is repeatedly 'attacking' me and attempting to start an 'edit war', and I have tried, both politely and sternly to make him stop, yet I will not edit-war with him, I have not edit-warred with him, and that is why I request a resolution through this request form. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Trying to talk to Hoppingalong. Although nothing was discussed on the article's talk page, the discussion took place on Hoppingalong's talk page. How do you think we can help? Does every single clause in a Wikipedia article need an inline citation? I think not, Hoppingalong thinks contrary. Tell me and him what the real answer is. Opening comments by HoppingalongI am not sure this is the place to initially discuss what should be included in an article when the requesting editor has not discussed anything on the article's talk page. So anyways... In the recent series of edits I have removed only information inserted by ɱ that was of no value ("international airports are located in states all along the coast") or that lacked any indication it is a fact worthy of inclusion in the article, and possibly POV ("Republic Airlines, Air Wisconsin, and American Eagle Airlines are some of the several regional airlines with flights across the East Coast.") and that was unsourced to boot. [6] Earlier, another Wikipedian removed a random list of bodies of water that was included in the article. When ɱ reinserted it without explaining why it belonged (why not a list of forests, rivers, streets, etc in this article?), I reverted the reinsertion. If ɱ is complaining that I have added Reliable Sources, that is true as can be. I have added 5 of the 6 there now, as well as several of the facts not before in the article. As for whether a "fact" needs a Reliable Source or citation, WP:V seems to cover that. What "facts" does ɱ want to add, based on what Reliable Sources? If the facts are actually appropriate and relevant to the subject and Reliable Sources support them, they should be included. Reverting to a version of the page that was unsourced, dubious, random, and unencyclopedic should not happen, though. Hoppingalong (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by ɱLet me refute all of what Hoppingalong is saying above. Firstly, this is the place to discuss, as the conflict was discussed in great depth on a talk page before coming here. As for Hoppingalong's reverting my edits, I do not believe that my information was valueless, and his example was really of value, as many countries are not plentiful in int'l airports. Take Turkmenistan, with its one int'l airport. Turkmenistan is a good deal larger than the U.S. State of California, a state that has 11 int'l airports. Costa Rica is twice the size of New Jersey, it has twice the landmass, yet their number of int'l airports is the same. Sudan and Chad are enormous (Chad bigger than Texas and Sudan 3x the size of Texas), yet together they have three int'l airports. Texas has a whopping 21 airports, and Sudan (3x the size), has a mere 2. So, no: my information is not valueless. To state that there are int'l airports all along the Coast is valuable, and so many regions are very scarce in int'l airports. I would have even listed all of the int'l airports if there were a couple, but the list is so large that I chose not to. That just goes to show how small the ratio is between landmass and # of int'l airports. Going on, Hoppingalong states that he removes things unworthy of inclusion. That is right out. You cannot remove AGF edits because you think they're unworthy. That's what the 'Talk' page is for. And as I stated before- 'unsourced to boot' is not something that allows removal of edits. Sorry, no. Then you state a WIkipedian removed a list, I'd like to object to the term 'Wikipedian', as I see an IP user blanking whole sections in this article as well as the List of U.S. state abbreviations as a reckless vandal. He is no Wikipedian. And I do not need to explain why something belongs after a vandal blanks entire sections, the procedure is to revert the vandalism and state it as reverting vandalism, which is what I did. Your middle paragraph shows how much of an exhibitionist and strutter you are, and your sickeningly profound pompousness. And you state that WP:V covers reliable sources, and it does, it really does. It states that facts must be verifiable. Note that it does not say that facts must be verified. It does Not want people to verify their every sentence, it wants people to make sure that while writing, they should keep in mind that everything they write should be able to be backed up by a source. What facts do I want to add? All that I have tried to add, all that you will simply delete with a click of a button, without a second thought, all that several IP users have vandalised over the years, no reason stated. I would like to point out that the current version of the article is the version that Hoppingalong is happy with right now, with inline cites after every clause or sentence under the intro, and no picture worthy enough for its inclusion, him citing relevance. For the sake of the record, the full unvandalised article currently lies at User:Ɱ/sandbox3, which did take good effort to reconstruct, effort that Hoppingalong's confounding morals will undo and twist up without a second thought to it. Please note that the sandbox page is not how I want the article to look, just that I want it closer to this, and with the majority of the information on it. East Coast of the United States, User talk:Hoppingalong discussionPlease 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.
Comment from DRN volunteer - Hi. Thanks for coming to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) with this dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. The WP:Verifiability policy requires that all statements be supported by WP:Reliable sources. To quote from that policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". Therefore, if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided. In particular, see WP:CHALLENGE which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material.... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." WP does contain an interesting essay Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but that is just an essay and carries little weight when resolving issues. For those editors that are reluctant to provide citations for "obvious" facts (such as that highway 95 runs up the East Coast) bear in mind that non-US readers may benefit from citations because they serve as a list of avenues for further research. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Response to uninvolved editor/DRN volunteer - Thank you for a response. I have to say that your sentence regarding WP:V is either misworded or wrong. WP:V states that any statement challenged or likely needs a cite, not that all statements need a cite. I also have a problem with this- "if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided." If a user challenges every little detail in an entire article, then a cite is needed for every little detail or else it all deserves to be wiped out??? I'm fine with citing some things in an article, I think that's very good, but an article is not supposed to look like what that East Coast article looks like right now. A cite after every sentence??? That isn't necessary, yet Hoppingalong thinks it is and will delete anything that doesn't have one. Go look at the article and the cites after every sentence in the body 'paragraphs' and really tell me that's how an article should be. Go, look at it, really. I'll even link it- East Coast of the United States. With regards to the post scriptum, why start a new discussion when the only involved editors cannot come to an agreement and are working at it here? And the discussion on the user talk page states both of our opinions, the involved editors of the article. So now there is a stalemate, and now there is a brand new DRN case right here.--ɱ 21:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with both Noleander and DGG, but would add this refinement. While objections to the lack of sourcing should be reasonable, at the same time we have an obligation to assume good faith and presume that such objections are rooted in a reasonable objection if no reason is stated or if the stated reason is vague or uncertain for some other reason. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor: I would like all parties to take a breath for a moment and contemplate what the edit warring is doing to the article. Please take a moment to look at the article in it's present state, and compare that with this older version of the article. I am sure that everyone has the best intentions, but clearly damage is being done. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment from uninvolved editor - After looking at the current version of the page and the version linked above by SueRangell I would agree that WP:BURDEN has been, perhaps, harshly applied here. I see no reason why the original information cannot be left in with cite tags. In my opinion, this assumes good faith that they will be cited. This has the added bonus of allowing uninvolved editors to come along and cite the content without having to write the article themselves. After they have been uncited and tagged for a reasonable amount of time they can be removed. Both editors in this dispute clearly have differing views regarding sourced material so I think my previous proposal would be a fair compromise. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 15:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, it looks like at least one party is happy with this compromise. If Hoppingalong is also willing to abide by this agreement perhaps we can end this dispute amicably to the benefit of the article Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Focus away from the DRN discussion? This is the DRN discussion right here, and we're still in the midst of this. There are unresolved issues, let's please not try to gloss over them. And of course I focus on other editors. Hoppingalong is not only an active editor of the East Coast article so I need to be able to work with him, but Hoppingalong is (ab)using WP:V against me. That is why I am focusing on 'other editors'. Should I just not focus on other editors, ignore the fact that he is abusing policies to revert so many of my edits? And you're wrong about abuse of WP:V, you stated this: "SueRangell and DGG are correct: WP:BURDEN should not be used to maliciously destroy valid information." That was in context of what was being done, the malicious destroying of info in the article. And that was entirely being done by Hoppingalong. I don't know why you say "'long' time", I only requested a bit more time, that's really harmless. I will be adding information, but Hoppingalong needs to agree with this 2-week plan and perhaps participate, because if I were to jump at it right now, he would be reverting and reverting till the cows come home, and you should know that. I certainly do.--ɱ 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
----
|
White Privilege
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | It looks like the conversation here has stalled, while there appears to be some progress on the article talk page. I am closing this case and sending it back to the article talk page. Please open a new case on the same topic if the dispute cannot be resolved there. Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview User:Apostle12 maintains that additional mitigating language is needed about the existence (or lack thereof) of white privilege. other editors generally feel this unnecessary, as the article starts with "in critical race theory" indicating a limitation to that academic domain. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion, asking for clarification on WT:MOS about WP:ALLEGED
How do you think we can help? provide additional eyes and suggestions for helping to integrate all viewpoints. Opening comments by Apostle12Please 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.
I may have jumped the gun by attempting some edits before the dispute resolution process really began. If so, I apologize. My attempts were intended to avoid the use of mitigating language ("alleged" and "might" were rejected by other editors) by clarifying that the discussion of "white privilege" is taking place within the context of a clearly defined academic field. The first paragraph of the lede now reads:
I believe this paragraph now conveys clearly that we are describing a way of looking at things rather than defining an objective reality. For me this solves the problem, because it allows the theoretical discussion to proceed without proclaiming the universal accuracy of a certain perspective. I made some other changes to the language of the lede. I think sticking with "non-whites" instead of using "non-whites" and "people of color" alternately, is a better choice for this article. Many people, especially latinos who consider themselves culturally white yet whose skin color is more pigmented than most whites, bridle at the "people of color" descriptor. Some of those whose skin is a lighter tone feel that use of the term "people of color" creates a racial amalgum that is artificial given the vast and varied peoples included under the "people of color" umbrella: blacks, latinos, asians, native americans, east asians, and so on. Anyway probably best to keep it simple. Apostle12 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Malik ShabazzSorry for the delay. I believe my concerns have been addressed with the recent edits to the article by Aposte12, but I would still like to participate in this dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by groupusculePlease 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.
I suggested on the talk page that the existence of "white privilege" was not controversial, and supported by apparently overwhelming academic consensus—evidence for which came from a Google Scholar search. One important point is that white privilege doesn't have to be an overall accounting of whether it's "better" or "easier" to be one race or another, everywhere. "White privilege" is advantages that a person gets for their "white" skin. No "alleged" about it—that's the definition. The specifics of what those advantages are may be more controversial. groupuscule (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Darkfrog24Please 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.
I made exactly one comment in this discussion. I'll summarize it here. This is the text in question as it currently stands in the article:
Apostle12 wants to add the word "alleged" before "advantages" and again before "disadvantages." Others say that this would be improper or violate WP:ALLEGE. I don't think that "alleged" would be used improperly. I do believe that some mitigating language would be best. However, there are plenty of other words that we could use that don't have connotations of criminality or untrustworthiness the way "alleged" does. The core of the matter is that, unlike, say, the theory of evolution, white privilege isn't backed by hordes of specific studies. There are many ways of explaining the phenomena with which the concept of white privilege is consistent. There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot, and there are things about it that are purely hypothetical, like whether being white itself is what gets people more housing options (which can also be explained by socioeconomic differences). In its current state, the lead presupposes that the advantages and disadvantages of whites and nonwhites, respectively, are all real and proven. It might be best to say something like "possible advantages" or "might or do," as follows:
"May or do" seems a bit awkward but it acknowledges that white privilege covers both proven and as yet unproven inequalities. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) White Privilege discussionHello. 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 read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
One statement above caught my eye: "There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot..." I think there is a problem with assigning the word "true" to such statements (on either side). One could just as easily say that race-based affirmative action is itself an example of black privilege. The problem is how to strike the right balance in the article. Just tacking on "alleged" is clunky and really doesn't show the subtlety of the issue. We need to come up with neutral and encyclopedic language that doesn't sound like a recruiting poster for the Aryan Nation or the Black Panthers. I am open to suggestions here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Comment from Uninvolved Editor/DRN Volunteer - I think I understand the concern from both sides, and I wanted to make a suggestion for a rewrite of a sentence in question. "Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that non-whites experience." Could be written as: "Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses on perceived advantages and disadvantages, based on race, accrued from their position in society." Solely a recommendation, and maybe to lead people in the right direction. I feel it would be less clunky to find a way to point out that the (dis)advantages are perceived -- there may be a better word to be used, but I feel a neutral term that implies that some (dis)advantages may be completely real, while others may not be. Hope this was helpful in any way! Acronin3 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Here are a couple of pages that use different wording than the current page does. Perhaps one of these might give someone an idea for improvements. http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/White_privilege_%28sociology%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_privilege&oldid=335120958 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Game of thrones tv series page
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | It appears consensus is for inclusion of national origin, however what that is depends on further discussion on the article talkpage. Closed as resolved with further collaboration needed to iron out details at article. Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In short, The user sandstein keeps trying to remove country of origin out of the lead. I, however, think it should be there as it keeps with the consistency of other popular tv shows and frankly, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be. Game of thrones should be labeled an American series in the introduction. Sandstein asked for a third opinion and we were given one, but no decisions have still been made. Sandstein then took it upon himself to start changing the disputed content without any type of discussion at all. I fear he may be starting an edit war Have you tried to resolve this previously? 3rd opinion, I've also asked for a vote and have tried discussing this on the talk page. Sandstein doesn't have any reasons for his negative actions but he keeps doing it How do you think we can help? I want many other editors to weigh in on this issue. This isn't about the origin if the show, but the confusing choice by sandstein to want to remove it from the lead because he doesn't agree with it and it is in almost every other popular shows and movies. Opening comments by SandsteinThe article this relates to is Game of Thrones (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a minor content disagreement about whether the lead sentence should describe the series as an "American television series" (Brickcity55's preference, for consistency with other articles), a "British/American television series" (an IP editor's preference, probably because many UK people are involved), or whether it should mention no particular nationality at the outset (the preference expressed by myself and I think two other people, because the lead says a few words later that the series was made by an US channel). Brickcity55 and the IP editor were recently blocked for edit-warring about this, and I solicited the opinion of others via WP:3O. I don't quite see the point of bringing this here, but I suggest that any who have an opinion about the content issue express it on the article talk page. Sandstein 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Comment by 3O editorI am the editor that responded to the 3O request. I am sure that both Sandstien and Brickcity55 have the best of intentions, but I think this is a pretty straightforward issue. My opinions are on the talk page. I humbly ask both editors to simply take a three day break from this article and do other things. I am sure that when you return things will be more in perspective for each of you. You both seem like reasonable people to me. --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 23:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Game of thrones tv series page discussionPlease 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.
I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I do not believe that there is any clear policy-based answer here between the "American" and "nothing" versions. (Anyone asserting the "American/British" version, however, needs a reliable source for that assertion; there are plenty such sources out there supporting the fact that it was made for a U.S. network, to say that it has a British origin would require sourcing.) Consistency does not favor the American version; unless there is a policy or guideline requiring consistency between articles, each article stands on its own and what's done in one article has no control over what's done in another article. That's not to say that consistency is not a good thing: it just means that no editor can insist on it without support from policy/guidelines. I don't know what's done in other articles, but I think that the "American ... U.S. channel" construction is redundant and unnecessary, so I favor the "nothing" version. Oh, and by the way, one editor keeps referring to a "vote." Things are not decided by votes at Wikipedia, but by consensus which is determined by more than just counting hands. Finally, I would note to Brickcity55 that since he introduced the "American" version, that the No consensus provision of the consensus policy says that since another editor has objected to it, that it must be removed unless consensus can be established to keep it. It would appear at this point that what opinion there is seems to be against its inclusion rather than being in favor of it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Vote, consensus whatever you want the call it. The point is for more people to get involved in the discussion so that a decision can be made in a respectful manner and not a bullied one. Putting American in the title would not be redundant and at any case a sentence could be rearranged, but once again, stating that it is redundant is an absolute stretch. If Sandstein doesnt want it there because of sentence structure then I'll change the sentence, that is what editors are for. But alas, there is no reason it shouldn't be there other than the fact that sandstein doesn't want it there. Unfortunately, that is not a good excuse. The information is important to the identity of the show and its development/background. Country of origin has been a part of wp articles since the beginning of wp. Why all the fuss now? What is the confusion coming from? I'm sorry but sentence structure is bit laughable considering how wp works.--Brickcity55 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor - I agree with Sandstein and Transporterman that the top two choices are "American" or nothing. American/British does not appear to be sensible nor supported by sources. I looked at
I wrote these comments on the talk page but they are more appropiate here: There is no confusion. The show is produced by hbo so the issue is black and white. Where a show or movie is filmed does not impact the country of origin of a show. Filming locations change, so does the origin change with it? No. Casting changes. Does this change origin? No. If two seasons from now, the cast is majority Irish and the show is filmed in Australia, would the show the be Irish-Australian? No. The show is American created, American produced, and American controlled. In short, it is American. I don't understand this fearful attitude ( which apparently is only for this article and not the hundreds of others) when it comes to putting country of origin in the lead. As far as concern about redundancy, let us remember-- this is wikipedia. As editors surely we can allow ourselves to change sentence structure and move "U.S channel" further down in the paragraphs. The medieval fantasy is not an issue at all as described by Cabe above. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me propose a resolution to this DRN case:
Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the consideration of British-American in the lead is there is no proof that this is a joint venture like Rome was. There shouldn't be any confusion of origin of the show as it clearly states that it is produced by hbo, an American company. Where does british come in? We can't just make things up as we go. Actors will change as do film locations. This is weak evidences of origin confusion. Editors that insist that the show is British must find one source saying that it is. Or are sources not needed for wp now? Ownership is just that, ownership. The actors don't own anything. They are employees.--Brickcity55 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you start trying to determine country of origin based on actors, filming locations, directors, writer, set designers, make up artists, producers and special effects companies get ready to do a lot of work as editors because all articles will need to adjust to this new style. As editors you can't just randomly pick and choose which articles the style guidelines will be applied to. --Brickcity55 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC) If I open up a business and hire 6 Japanese and 10 Australians to work for me, who owns the business. The lead is usually reserved for owners, not contributors. There is a difference. I own the business- that should be in the lead. The employees are contributors, their contributions can be noted in the following paragraphs.--Brickcity55 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC) As editors, we can't just write articles without facts. We can't just look at a work, and say "I think this is more complex than the facts suggest. I don't have any proof of it, it just looks like there may be" in that case, anyone can remove anything from an article without proof that the original information is wrong. If you think the issue is complex, you need to have sources stating that it is. You can't just look at the show and think that because it has foreign actors in it, there must be foreign originators too--- especially when there is no proof of that--- only proof that there is one originator. Yes, the piece may be more complex than meets the eye, but you don't know that. The piece could have one owner--- HBO, as is stated in multiple respected sources, like the show's credits. Once again, determining origin by actors and film location is not good editing. The walking dead has 3 British actors in main roles, the show is taped in georgia, produced by an American company and is based on literature created by an American author. If they move filming to Canada, and all but one of the roles is played by a Brit, would the show the be a Canadian, British and American series? Or would it just be a British Canadian show? --Brickcity55 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Is there consensus that nationality should be in first sentence? - Maybe we can break this into two steps:
If we have consensus here that the MOS is good guidance, we can agree to (1) and focus on the remaining question of what nationality to use: American? International? British-American? Indeed, we could close this DRN case and move back to the article's talk page to resolve (2). --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC) There is no reason why origin shouldn't be included in this article but in all the others. So yes, it should be included. Seeing as how there is no proof of anything but American ownership, American is the only nationality that should be in the lead. Evidence has to be given before anything else is added.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Social market economy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion was not extensive enough. Please continue to discuss this on the talkpage to find common ground. If, after an extensive discussion (required to file at DR/N) a consensus is not reached, feel free to re-file. Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Mr. Mustard tries to add information that is subject to academic dispute as an undisputed fact Have you tried to resolve this previously? Third opinion does not work since no one answered the requests. How do you think we can help? You could probably help to solve the discussed topics in an academic and NPOV way. Opening comments by Mr. MustardPlease 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social market_economy&diff=522250625&oldid=522234214, Talk:Social_market_economy#Expansion_of_the_article discussionPlease 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.
|
Crunkcore, Kesha
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing: 5 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview For over two years, there has been on and off debate as to whether Kesha should be listed as a crunkcore artist on the crunkcore article, and if so, how. It stems from a mention in a single source, an Allmusic review of Streets of Gold by 3OH!3. Author David Jeffries states "Either way, 'My First Kiss is the zenith with a hook that incorporates kissing noises along with some come-on’s from crunkcore queen/special guest Kesha." The first objection of Kesha being listed was by an IP editor in August 2010. Also discussed was whether Kesha should simply be listed, or whether a more detailed explanation is needed. In January 2011, User:Lothar von Richthofen closed the debate as a speedy keep with the entry being a simple list. The second phase of the debate opened the next month, when another IP editor claimed to have personally emailed Jeffries as to how serious his labeling of Kesha as "crunkcore queen" was meant to be. According to the transcript that this editor posted, Jeffries did not mean it to be a serious genre label at all. However, an RfC determined that this email is not a published source and could not be verified, so it was deemed unreliable. The third phase of the debate was opened up by User:Chrisbkoolio, who felt that while Kesha should be mentioned, she should not be simply listed but rather given a more detailed explanation. The discussion basically ended with a decision by me and User:Syxxpackid420 to have a simple listing. However, disruptive edits from IPs over Kesha convinced me to ask for RfC. The resulting RfC wording for the article was: "Also, David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." Some editors, mainly Syxxpack, objected to this decision. I opened another RfC and Syxxpack supplied additional sources. These were unreliable. Discussion is now stagnant. Have you tried to resolve this previously? There have been three or four discussions including two RfC's and maybe a third opinion request, plus two small discussions on the Kesha page. Page protection has been tried numerous times. How do you think we can help? I have no idea. :) Good luck! Opening comments by krazycev13Please 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.
Weird how this is the first thing that pops up when I come back to Wikipedia. Frankly, I just want this unnecessary debate to be over. In all honesty, Kesha is not a crunkcore artist under any stretch of the imagination. If people say don't keep her, then don't keep her. I don't think it's a necessary inclusion, personally, and it probably is inappropriate to cite an off-handed reference. I feel like this one can't be treated as black and white, sometimes a rule may need to take the backseat to logic. However, I won't argue if it's kept. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Syxxpackid420Please 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.
Why are we advertising David Jeffries, Wikpedia is not an advert. Why are we using so many weasel words, the paragraph does not state they are but that they can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by HadomaruPlease 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.
As there is only one source that refers to Ke$ha as such, and because it is only in an offhand manner, I feel we have no real reason to keep Ke$ha in any article about Crunkcore. Especially as this one small citation has caused so much controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by TryptofishI think I might have responded to a content RfC about this, a very long time ago, but I really have little memory of it, nor much current interest in the question. I came here because the bot notified me. I don't think I have much to offer the discussion, but if anyone would like me to come back and give it a closer look, please feel free to tell me that at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by MabuskaPlease 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.
I only came across this issue when I volunteered via an RfC and my particpation has been quite limited. My view is still the same - if a source has stated Kesha is a crunkcore artist then it is sourced. IIRC the last time I was involved, one editor allegedly emailed the editor of that source as they disagreed with it however I objected as that is original research so is inadmissible as evidence that Kesha isn't a crunkcore artist. Personally I believe this issue boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE and is also one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia - unless the whole dynamic at the root of it has changed, yet from the description above it doesn't appear so... I think. Mabuska (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by JonjonjohnyJust as User:Mabuska has said, this boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE quickly. The source supports this, and other sources throughout the history of the article have defended this addition. I support the use of the source and the inclusion of Kesha. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Rich FarmbroughJust a little note: While the email may not be a RS (or more accurately verifiable) for citing in the article, if we assume that it is genuine it would be foolish to continue to include the genre assignation, sans any other RS. Our policies are there to help us produce quality product, not to get in the way of it. I can see no other assignation of the genre Musique-radio says A écouter gratuitement sur Musique-radio.com, « My First Kiss » signé 3OH!3 et Ke$ha est le single choisi pour annoncer l'opus « Streets Of Gold » du groupe crunkcore américain. and that seems to be about it. Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC). Opening comments by EduemoniThe discussion itself was based solely upon a statement from a interviewer who described Pop and Electropop female artist Kesha as "crunkcore queen", however this source relies only upon one and one statement only, Kesha didn't label her work or herself as Crunkcore artist, in contrary, Kesha only participated in one track which is influenced by this style which is a song by 3HOH an yet another electropop american group, the song My First Kiss is the one that this interviewer used as reference, (IIRC) however like I stated in the discussion, this song is not crunkcore as well, which leaves this statement with a weak basis, to matter of comparison, Madonna is the queen of Pop, Michael Jackson is the king of pop, Elvis is the king of Rock and Roll and Aretha Franklin is the queen of soul, how comes a newcomer is the king of a genre or style? Crunkcore, Kesha discussionPlease 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.
Are uninvolved editors listed? Perhaps the filer included several uninvolved editors that merely commented in the past RfCs on this topic? The number of involved editors may be only 4 or 5. I mention this because it is customary to wait for opening statements by all participants, but with so many listed, it is likely that some will not provide comments. My recommendation is that the filer delete subsections above for editors that are not actively involved (meaning in the past month, in the articles' talk pages) in the dispute, unless those editors have already posted a comment. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is recent talk page discussion? - A DRN case can only be opened if there has been ar recent (in the past few months) talk page discussion. I'm not seeing where the recent discussion is on this topic. I looked in the two primary talk pages and I don't see any discussion, for instance, the discussion on Keisha in the Crunkcore talk page is dated May 2011. Also, the article list at the top of this DRN case includes a couple of talk page archives from one or two years ago. Can the filer (or anyone) point me to links showing a recent talk page discussion on this topic? If there are no recent discussions, this DRN case should be closed, and the discussion needs to happen first on the talk page (yes, for the 3rd or 4th time). If the discussion is likely to be contentious, a WP:RFC should be opened on the talk page, left open for one month, gather lots of input, then closed by an admin. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with Rich Farmbrough that using a single 'throw-away' remark is not enough to list her as 'crunkcore'. If further sources can be found to back up the genre claim then by all means, put it back in. However, I point out that according to WP:BURDEN the emphasis is on those that wish to include the definition of crunkcore to source it appropriately. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
So can David Jeffries be removed from the crunkcore. Like 3Fasmily6 i don't care if Kesha is included. (Syxxpackid) 82.16.27.28 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
|
WT:FOOTY
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing: 5 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There are editors -- particular, one Kai Lau (talk · contribs) -- who have been resisting any attempt at diffusing the large and unwieldy Category:Chinese footballers and have reversed not only my own attempts at diffusion but also that of Dsp13 (talk · contribs) at diffusion. They (and particularly he) do not seem to have any grasp of the principles under WP:CAT and refuse to learn how subcategorization works. I've tried to reason with them, but they (particularly he) refuse to listen. Perhaps I'm getting too frustrated. Perhaps inappropriately so. But that's why I'd like some independent voices in to see if I have. Certainly I don't believe that people should simply reverse the hard work of others (in this case, myself) without good reason, and certainly acting as if they have no understanding of WP:CAT. (Another user in the same vein, Mentoz86 (talk · contribs), is now claiming (ridiculously) that geographically categorizing these players is OR -- as if it is OR that, e.g., Dalian is in Liaoning and Liaoning is in China!
There was a prior thread in which I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the consensus was going to be that someone else was going to try to diffuse the players by position, which will certainly cut down on the clutter. But the only attempt by Dsp13 to do so was reversed (again, without good reason, in my opinion). These editors are blocking diffusion with no good, grounded-in-policy reason. (For the earlier thread, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73.) How do you think we can help? Naturally, I'd like people to convince that those who (in my opinion don't understand WP:CAT) oppose the diffusion that they're wrong. :-) But that might not be what you conclude. What I really want is for neutral voices to step in and suggest a proper route to go about this. WP:FOOTY seems to be acting like a province of its own, which, as I explained WP:CONSENSUS doesn't allow it to be, but that appears to be falling on deaf ears, too. Opening comments by Dsp13I don't know much about either football or China, but I've done some categorization in the past. Category:Chinese footballers is one of a number of very large national footballer categories, and Nlu was trying to diffuse it by geographical subregion. S/he was inclined to see resistance to this as parochial ignorance, or wilful obstruction, of the general need to diffuse large categories. Other WP:FOOTY editors reacted badly to this, arguing that the geographically diffused categories weren't natural or recognisable categories: (1) using the diffused categories required specialist geographical knowledge unavailable to most football fans; (2) the resultant regions were not as 'defining' of the footballer as nationality (as defined by international footballing bodies); (3) assigning a region to a footballer would in many cases be arbitrary or not well-defined. (I think some of these objections amount to saying that the geographically-diffused categories seem non-defining to football fans.) My compromise proposal was to diffuse by nationality and position. I created and populated a Chinese midfielder category, and then hung back for ten days or so to see if there were any serious objections. Kai Lau reverted my population of this category (unfortunately I didn't notice at the time, since s/he informed me on an archived portion of my talk page). If s/he hadn't have done this, I planned to put time into populating categories by nationality and position - which I'm still happy to do in principle (let me know if that's wanted!), though I'm not at all interested in doing so without consensus. Dsp13 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Kai LauMy original concern as expressed in the earlier thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73 was that I find the navigation too esoteric for the casual football fan to understand compared to the traditional alphabetical sorting which we have now. Nlu has constantly argued that we read WP:DIFFUSE but clearly it states that "there is no limit on the size of categories" and compared to some of the more popular simular pages such as Category:English footballers that goes up to 13,000+ then Category:Chinese footballers is tiny by comparison. I have since tried to reason with Nlu where I suggested that what he is trying to achieve will as GiantSnowman points out create "mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles" (GiantSnowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)) and that if he still determined to carry out his diffusion then try Category:Brazilian footballers instead because it is a more popular page and the reaction would be significantly larger in his attempt to change the general football consensus within wikipedia. Unfortunately Nlu's reply was malicious and he accused me of being a "child" (Nlu (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)). User talk:Kai Lau 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Mentoz86I've only been involved in discussing this case at WT:FOOTY, and my main concern when it comes to categorization is that in the football-world Category:Footballers from Foo is not the same as Category:Fooian footballers. I've tried to propose different ways to diffuse Category:Chinese footballers (and the 200 other similar categories), and I thought we reached a consensus to diffuse it by position. For some reason, this doesn't happen and User:Nlu comes back and starts over the same discussion, and we've tried to reason with the editor but it looks like the editor refuses to follow local consensus. When urged by User:Kai Lau to diffuse Category:Brazilian footballers instead, Nlu says that "he don't have the expertise over Brazilian geographical/geopolitcal entities". In my opinion, if we should include something in the article it should be sourced in the article, not use our own reasearch. That means that if we were add "Footballers from Beijing" to an article, it should be sourced in the article that he was from Beijing, which means that anyone could in theory diffuse categories like that without being a "expert on geography and geopolitical entities".Mentoz86 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by GiantSnowmanMy issue with diffusing by location is that is an absolute BLP nightmare. How do we know a person is from X? Birth place? Where they grew up? Where they live now? Nlu is not able to provide a cogent argument supporting his proposal, hence why it has not received any support at the relevant WikiProject. Diffusing by position is slightly better as there are more reliable sources which state position, but still not ideal - many players play in multiple positions, and it seems we are creating more work for ourselves. Plus why is Nlu only concernes with Chinese footballers? Any new category system should apply to all relevant categories, not the one you have most knowledge in. Showing a bit of OR, perhaps with his knowledge of Chinese geography rather than using RS to support his BLP edits? This isn't a 'dispute' - this is one editor failing to get consensus for mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles. Finally, to be frank, I don't see the point in diffusing the category at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GiantSnowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Arsenalkid700Sorry but this will be short from me as I do not have proper use of a computer right now. Basically what Snowman and Mentoz said. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC) WT:FOOTY discussionPlease 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.
|
Monsanto and Wikileaks
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing: 4 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview Relevant article section is Monsanto#Continental_Europe. The issue here is about Wikileak cables discussing efforts by the Government of Spain and Monsanto to get help from the US government to support the Spanish Government's pro-GMO position. A user, Semitransgenic, introduced an article from the Guardian, the author of which has several POV statements, which semitransgenic wishes to quote. The particular quote is that the US was "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." This is POV and false statement. I've tried to simply delete the quote and replace it with the neutral and more accurate statement "Monsanto's Director for Biotechnology for Spain and Portugal and the Spanish Secretary of State for the Environment Josep Puxeu requested that the US government support Spain on the matter" Semitransgenic will not take out the POV quote. I initially did suggest getting rid of the Guardian article altogether as there are more NPOV and reliable sources. However Semitranagenic really wants to keep it so I yielded on that as there is other acceptable content in the article. But I feel the quote needs to go under the idea that "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." as stated in the reliable sources noticeboard. So I would like help. Thanks. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Have talked extensively on Talk. Have proposed various other wordings, all of which have been rejected. How do you think we can help? Please review and judge if the quote is POV or not. Thank you. Opening comments by semitransgenicPlease 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 JytdogSorry I initially responded to "White Terror" resolution below. Not sure what to add here; I opened the dispute and made my request for help above. I disagree with most of what semitransgenic says above. I have found him to be desirous in general of creating POV content in the Monsanto article and intransigent with respect to arriving at consensus on NPOV language. He has stuck to his guns on including this quote about the ambassador working "directly for Monsanto" On other points I have yielded but I think this quote is out of bounds POV and cannot stay. So I asked for help. Thanks. Monsanto and Wikileaks discussionPlease 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.
|
White Terror
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing: Five days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A highly biased editor cherry picks sources, some highly questionable, to insist on a number of points on which he refuses to compromise, preventing even modest amendments. Current unresolvable differences include: 1 - Is Victor Serge a reliable source, given that he was never an academic historian, and was a paid propagandist for the Red side in the Russian Civil War, and an unrepentant revolutionary afterwards? 2 - Is it right to include terror by enemies of the Whites as "White Terror"? 3 - Is it right to cite a small narrow group of historians implying they represent all historians in contentious views saying "Historians emphasise..." 4 - Is it acceptable to used biased language like calling one side "the Government" and the other "movement" when both had similar claims to legitimacy, or talking of the "heroism" of only one side. 5 - Is it acceptable to quote a defence of Red Terror (especially with no comparable defence of White)?
Long tedious discussions on talk page, appeal to NPOV Group, appeal to Russia Group How do you think we can help? Resolve the five immediate differences above and insist that all editors of the article write from a NPOV. Opening comments by 67.169.177.176Please 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 InformedContentPlease 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 Tomcat7Please 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 75.51.171.155Please 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 EverlastingGazePlease 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 Darkness_ShinesPlease 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.
White Terror discussionPlease 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.
|
iPhone 5, iPhone 4S
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed. | Closing: 4 days without activity |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview User Tagremover repeatedly asserted that information in the "Reception" section of the iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S must be supported by scientific analysis, he then went on to claim that all information in that section is bias, supported by unreliable sources and undue. Basically the user is questioning the entire concept of Critical Reception and the content that should be included in that section. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page How do you think we can help? Analyse the situation and inform the user about what is acceptable and what is not in the reception section. Opening comments by TagremoverFirst restore the article tags you deleted, section review, with 4 issues, on iphone 5 and 4s. Tagremover (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by YuMaNuMaI've worked on technology articles for the past 2 years or so that I've been editing on Wikipedia, the critical reception section are by nature subjective, however they have always been accepted in Good Articles and even Featured Articles. Example of Good articles that I have contributed to and consist of a critical reception section include, iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), many more articles particularly ones on movies also consist of critical reception sections, which include critics from published newspapers commenting on the movie and its flaws and strengths. Although the iPhone 5 critical reception section is quite lengthy, its entirety is supported by reliable references, most of them are commonly used by mainstream newspapers, yet the user claim that the section was one of the most poorly referenced section he has seen. The user also claimed that it was bias despite receiving an extensive copyedit by User:McGeddon who removed the remaining bias language in the section (words like also, additionally, etc), as you can see the process seemed to be quite meticulous. The section in addition to providing readers with information about the reception from critics, included flaws and defects that the device suffers from, all of these claims were extensively sources with both mainstream media and technology newsblogs, all of which are confirmed reliable sources by RSN and most were cited by mainstream sources sometime during their published history, yet Tagremover still claimed that the section is poorly referenced and bias. YuMaNuMa Contrib 13:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC) iPhone 5, iPhone 4S discussionPlease 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'm a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. Thank you for submitting a request, and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard! Without commenting on the actual dispute just yet, I've noticed that an RfC was requested on the talk page on 8 November. Although I understand you eagerness to address the dispute, discussing disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, including RfC, is discouraged. I recommend closing either the RfC request or the DRN request. It's better to have the discussion concentrated in one location. Whichever dispute resolution forum you choose is entirely up to you. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Allen West (politician)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an ongoing dispute as to whether it is appropriate to label Mr. West as an outgoing incumbent, given that he has now been certified by the State of Florida as having lost his election. The entry is being changed back and forth, and the moderator Niteshift36 has gotten involved. Several other, IP users are also making this change to the article in question. Moderator Niteshift36 seems determined to advance the partisan position that the election has not reached finality. His motivations for this I will not presume to speculate about. My own rationale for making the change was posted on the talk page for this article. Subsequent to posting my talk page explanation of my proposed rationale, I have abandoned all editing activity with regard to this issue, as it seems clear that there are control / power issues coming into play and I do not wish to be a part of those. Despite this, Moderator Niteshift36 has begun accusing me of sockpuppetry. I do not believe that this issue is being handled in a professional, dispassionate and detached manner, and think that it would be appropriate if another moderator, one not personally attached to the content of this article, assumed control of this issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have explained my proposed rationale for changing the article, and I have abandoned further editing of the article with regard to this issue pending resolution. How do you think we can help? Remove Niteshift36 from the issue and allow another moderator, who can view the issue from a detached and cool-headed position, to assume control of this issue. Opening comments by Niteshift36Please 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.
I will adress this only after the complainant removes his false allegations about partaisanship, ownership and his general commentary about me and not the issue. If this can't even start out as fact based, then I see no point in engaging. Until then, I remind him that 3RR isn't really limited to a 24 hour period. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by several IP usersPlease 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.
Allen West (politician) discussionPlease 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.
|
Fardeen Khan
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | No response by opposing editors (who have edited since receiving notice of this filing). Consider a request for comments to obtain additional participation by the community if the dispute continues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview For many years the article contained information about Fardeen Khan being of Afghan (Pathan) origin through his father and grandfather, but very recently a POV-pusher came along with anon IPs and began washing off the Afghan information plus categories. Everytime I readd the info the disruptive person(s) reverts my edit. I even improved my sources by citing Encyclopædia Britannica, The New York Times, The Times of India, Mid Day, Pajhwok Afghan News and many others. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? I don't know Opening comments by NeelkamalaPlease 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 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9Please 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 190.145.26.2Please 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 39.47.254.208Please 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.
Fardeen Khan discussionPlease 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.
From reading the discussion on the talk page. It seems that there is some confusion regarding heritage and nationality. As far as I understand the heritage goes (subject - born in india) - (subject father - born in india) - (subject grandfather - born in afghanistan). Would this be a correct summary of his lineage regarding the Afghan heritage? Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
|
LGBT rights
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Inadequate prior talk page discussion. Please see my posting of 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC) in the closed discussion for other alternatives. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Please see the details at User:Largoplazo/Note_on_LGBT_rights_in_African_countries, where I summarized the dispute regarding 13 articles on LGBT rights in African nations. At least one other user, User:Psychonaut, has communicated with us and commented in my summary, so I skipped the Third Opinion option, and RFC seems to require tagging all 13 articles separately and creating independent discussions, which didn't seem to be a constructive approach. The current status is the person who, presumably, wrote the text in dispute has re-inserted it two or three times, and has registered as User:AfricaTanz but hasn't replied to Psychonaut at User talk:AfricaTanz. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I created a page as a place for discussion and linked to it in edit summaries. I contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84_reported_by_User:Jenova20_.28Result:_1_week.29 (Jenova20 notes that the user has been involved in conflict elsewhere). I skipped 3rd Opinion because it wasn't just him and me, and RFC calls for approaching all 13 articles independently.
Develop consensus on whether User:AfricaTanz is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SOAPBOX and, as has been suggested, WP:OWN, whether the user is simply going off on a tangent only incidentally related to each article's topic. Give guidance as to next steps if the content in question should be deleted and AfricaTanz won't cooperate. Thanks.
Opening comments by PsychonautFor several months an anonymous user in the 70.253.0.0/16 and 75.34.0.0/16 IP ranges has been editing various LGBT-related articles, most of which User:Largoplazo listed above. The editor adds a lot of useful and well-sourced information, much of which nonetheless constitutes synthesis of legal arguments and interpretations strongly favouring a pro-LGBT point of view. For instance, he (or she) will start by listing various provisions of a country's constitutions, laws, and international treaties; these do not themselves directly address the subject of homosexuality, but are rather concerned with notions such as the right to privacy or the right to health. The editor will then argue that, taken individually or in aggregate, these provisions bind the state to legal protection of homosexual acts, and furthermore that the country's existing anti-homosexual laws and practices are illegal, unconstitutional, criminal, etc. Besides the synthesis, the edits are problematic in that the legal sources upon which his case rests are often quoted to excess; long passages of the same charters and treaties have been copied and pasted across several articles. Whenever other users, including Largoplazo and I, tried to remove or reword problematic portions of his contributions, he reverted without discussion. We tried engaging him on various user talk and article talk pages (e.g., User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries) but never received any response. Eventually one editor, User:Jenova20, brought the matter to WP:AN3 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)). The IP account began accusing other editors of vandalism and other breaches of policy, but still refused to address the problems others had raised with his own edits. The IP ranges were therefore blocked for disruptive editing and failure to communicate. Immediately afterwards, a new account, User:AfricaTanz, was created and began editing the same articles in the same style. It is therefore almost certain that AfricaTanz is this same anonymous IP user. However, he has so far ignored requests on his talk page to discuss his edits. He seems to have taken some notice of the objections, as his first edits were to provide references for some of the conclusions he draws. However, these repairs are largely superficial; the chains of legal reasoning remain novel (or at least unsourced) and the conclusions are presented as matters of settled law rather than the opinion of whatever NGO he decided to cite in support of them. This editor is clearly a very intelligent and passionate individual, and I would like nothing better than to see as much of his material as possible remain in Wikipedia in one form or another. But until and unless he works with others to moderate his propensity for original research and to present what remains in a factual rather than polemic manner, I'm not sure what we can do. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Jenova20Well where do i start? I first met the user as IP 70.253.75.84 on LGBT rights in Texas where he attempted to edit war over a collapsing table. He posted a message on my talk page under the header User talk:Jenova20#Manual of Style about collapsing tables where he accused me of violating MOS policy for collapsing said table and then later told me to "mind my own business" after i tried to justify the collapsing table. This then started again when i made edits he didn't like to Template:LGBT rights table Africa, where i neatened up some descriptions to keep them in sync and added a medium graphic between yes or no. He went about reverting every edit with sometimes condescending summaries such as "don't add the cute little graphics without knowing the often-complex subject matter". The edits to this page made me think he just wanted to war since he had not edited tha page before me, but followed me there to revert after my talk page argument with him. I'm also now thinking that he simply wants to control all the LGBT in the... articles from other editors and is resorting to edit wars to do so with very little discussion. Here is the history for the template and this is for the LGBT rights in Texas article. It wouldn't be so bad if he understood that he can't just edit war to get his point across and accuse others of policy violations rather than discss in a reasonable manner. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by AfricaTanzPlease 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.
LGBT rights discussionPlease 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.
I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. Other than the one comment at Largoplazo's talk page has AfricaTanz ever discussed this matter elsewhere, either under that username or (presuming for the moment that AfricaTanz is the 70.253..../75.34.... IP editor) at some other talk page? Per our guidelines and FAQ on the talk page, a single comment by a disputant is not ordinarily enough discussion to bring a dispute to this noticeboard. I'd ordinarily close it, but because it spans such a large number of articles I do not want to do so without giving the other editors a chance to demonstrate that it has been discussed somewhere. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Discussion under way in another forum (specifically, the requested move discussion, which is itself a form of dispute resolution). The issues raised should be taken into consideration by the administrator or editor who closes that discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview General dispute over what is and what is not NPOV and a reliable source, which is causing disagreements over the article title between, not just over Paul Barlow and I, but a whole group of editors (see Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move). Have you tried to resolve this previously? See Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism How do you think we can help? An experienced Wikipedian view and commentary (preferably posted at the article's talk page so its viewable to all editors involved), acting as a neutral 3rd party on article issues such as reliable sources, NPOV and the article title would be helpful. We are going round in circles. Opening comments by Paul BarlowI am not convinced that we are at the stage that we need dispute resolution. In fact, I would say that what we have is a case in which one editor has a very strong POV and is not finding very much support for it, despite his best efforts. User:Nirvana2013 made some changes to the long-established article Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism, which is on my watchlist. I noticed that he had moved a reference to the biographer Robert Payne to the lede. Payne asserts that that Hitler's vegetarianism (along with his other ascetic tendencies) was fiction invented by Goebbels. Payne's biography of Hitler is well-known to be very unreliable. (See comments by user:Lebob [34] [35]) This led to a user talk page discussion that was later transfered to to the article talk page Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Robert_Payne. Nirvana2013 then tried to get the title of the article changed, making a page move request [36]. Overwhelmingly, independent commentators have been against such a change Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 then wanted to remove categories that link the article to the vegetarianism topics. The inappropriateness of this was noted by user:Betty Logan [37] and myself [38]. I really don't know what specific dispute Nirvana2013 wants to "resolve". Nirvana2013 seems to believe that an anti-vegetarian "POV" is involved in some way, but I think he misunderstands how that term is used on Wikipedia. If anything more weight is given to assertions by some vegetarian activists who want to deny Hitler's vegetarianism than strict application of WP:RS should allow. Historians (and seemingly most informed editors) say Hitler was a vegetarian because evidence suggests that he was. This is not part of some strategy to belittle vegetarianism, or to promote Hitler! Paul B (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Adolf Hitler's vegetarianismPlease 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.
|