Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
RRR	Closed	SaibaK (t)	4 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by HopsonRoad on 16:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HopsonRoad (talk · contribs)
• Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
• Tiller54 (talk · contribs)
• Shivertimbers433 (talk · contribs)
• Artaxerxes (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement about whether an election result infobox should include a third-party candidate, who received less than 5% of the vote, in an election where neither major candidate achieved a majority. Those in favor of inclusion feel that the third-party votes prevented a majority. Those not in favor argue that the third-party votes were not determinative because neither major-party candidate persuaded swing voters to their side. They claim that inclusion in the infobox gives undue weight to a non-notable candidate.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Suggested using an explanatory footnote, instead of a full-blown presence in the infobox, as seen in this edit.

How do you think we can help?

Suggest whether listing the vote tallies (as a percentage) of the top three candidates is more appropriate than an explanatory footnote with only the top two vote getters or suggest another alternative.

Summary of dispute by Muboshgu

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Tiller54

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Shivertimbers433

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Artaxerxes

INCLUDE/KEEP: It's not so much about Wikipedia editors assuming the third-party candidate did or did not affect the overall campaign result. Putting this candidate's information in the infobox gives readers, political observers, researchers, etc., the easy-to-read ability to assess/consider/factor in the possible impact for themselves. The third-party candidate's presence in the race may be considered significant—politically, historically, statistically, culturally—by future readers of the article in ways not foreseen by editors now.--Artaxerxes 03:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This entire process is strange to me, with all the "volunteers", "summaries", and different places to comment. I've stated my case above, and firmly believe that's the way to go. Other reasons for it might be mentioned. Living in Vermont I've watched these close gubernatorial elections and how they swing between parties on a couple thousand votes. The "granular" nature of this razor-edged balance could be of interest to observers of Vermont politics. This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote. Everything small is big in a state the size of Vermont. I see no great cost for inclusion in this case: a footnote can explain why the exception to Wiki policy. (Besides, Vermont is used to being first in things.)--Artaxerxes 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay

I'm a late comer to this dispute, as I only joined the discussion at page-in-question, today. We've a tricky situation there. AFAIK, the practice across US gubernatorial election articles, is to exclude candidates from the infobox, who failed to obtain 5% of the popular vote. However, in this particular gubernatorial election - no candidate got 50%, thus throwing the election to the state's General Assembly. Question is - Due we include the third party candidate into the infobox (even though he didn't get 5%) on the assumption that he caused the election to be thrown to the General Assembly (i.e did he personally take enough votes from the eventual victor, causing the victor to come up short in the popular percentage & thus require going to the General Assembly) or do we exclude, as we don't know if he personally took enough votes away. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed an actual article or article talk page above. The filing party is requested to edit the case listing and list the case in dispute (either the article or its talk page) correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The talk page in discussion is Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate. User:HopsonRoad 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done by User:HopsonRoad --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note:  Verified Noticeable discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Verified All editors have been notified on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note:  Partly done 2/6 dispute summaries given. Waiting for other four users. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The recent discussion is in the middle of older discussion. Reopening. This case is ready for a moderator. It appears that User:JustBerry is preparing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Since talk page discussion is active and only two out of the six involved parties have filed their summaries, seems like talk page discussion has not yet been exhausted or finished. Moderation will begin once talk page discussion has failed reaching a consensus or resolution. --JustBerry (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Update – GoodDay (talk · contribs) proposed a compromise seen here, which was reverted by Tiller54 (talk · contribs) without discussion on the Talk page. This compromise is, for the time being, the status quo. Tiller54 has received ample encouragement to participate at Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate. User:HopsonRoad 14:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - User:JustBerry - Is this case still being discussed, or should it be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If some of the listed parties wish to discuss this and others do not, since participation here is voluntary, discussion may continue with those participants who wish to participate. Do the editors who have commented wish to continue to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm available and appreciative of your willingness and ability to help. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• @HopsonRoad: Thanks for your reply. --JustBerry (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2 most active parties (myself & HopsonRoad) are in agreement at Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 & so there's little to discuss. The opposition seems to have dried up. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: Do any of the other involved parties wish to continue discussion? Checking in with User:Artaxerxes, as xe had a dispute summary posted for the case. Heading towards a close. --JustBerry (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @HopsonRoad: @GoodDay: Although you may have come to agree with each other, what do you think of the dispute summary User:Artaxerxes posted? --JustBerry (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• If it had been my choice, I'd have opened up an Rfc on the matter. Anyways, I still believe that footnotes is all that's required for the Libertarian nominee. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• My feeling is that the solution that we agreed upon accomplishes what User:Artaxerxes is looking for, namely, "Putting this candidate's information in the infobox gives readers, political observers, researchers, etc., the easy-to-read ability to assess/consider/factor in the possible impact for themselves." The footnotes achieve this in a manner that does not give undue importance to the third-party candidate's votes. Furthermore, the Analysis section covers the role of the third-party candidate in the results sufficiently, which includes the candidate himself opining that he was "not a spoiler". I have found no WP policy to which one could refer and explain contravention of in a footnote. The article contains no corroboration of his statement that "This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote." He mentions "cost" of inclusion—to me it is about giving a third-party candidate prominence in a race where the major-party candidates failed to win voters to their cause, as normally happens in Vermont. It also makes the infobox look incomplete to have a missing image with the third candidate—a function of his non-notability. User:HopsonRoad 22:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• A resolution may be better achieved by obtaining wider consensus on this issue through an RfC (per GoodDay's point above). @HopsonRoad: @Artaxerxes: Would you agree? --JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I would support an RfC. A blank spot for an image in the infobox is a prompt for somebody to fill it—perhaps an editor in Vermont such as myself. Challenged to show that the third-party candidate received considerable attention in the run-up to the vote, I might say I noticed far more on him than on Milne when he challenged Leahy for Senate this year. Without original research, doing an analysis of relative coverage/attention might be tricky—but, as with the image, I might feel pressed to provide some support for the point (as I was the one who made on it). I'm mostly referring to Vermont-based political commentary I heard on radio or saw on television.--Artaxerxes 13:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm unfamiliar with that process. If it means that additional experienced eyes look in on the controversy, I see no harm in it. However, I feel that this issue has occupied more time and emotion than it warrants. I'd be interested in what your take on the matter is, JustBerry. Perhaps the parties can be content to receive your advice. User:HopsonRoad 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: In the requests for comment process, fellow editors vote for or against the change or pose an alternate suggestion in some cases. The purpose of this process is to achieve wider consensus. Although DRN volunteers generally don't offer their own opinion, but provide mediation, guidelines, and direction for discussion amongst involved editors, I can offer a few words. Firstly, seeing the secretary of state election results, the candidates listed matches the article. Additionally, this other reference lists similarly. Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves? On the contrary, regarding your statement User:Artaxerxes, which sources support this: This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote. Everything small is big in a state the size of Vermont. In the end, a discussion grounded in verifiability should be focusing on coverage by independent, third-party, reliable sources of the event to support or argue against including those other candidates. --JustBerry (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, here, JustBerry. To answer your question, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves?", of course they should be and are—in the body of the article. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the Mississippi gubernatorial election, 1999 article, where the third party candidate garnered 1% that caused the legislature to decide the outcome. How vanishingly small does the difference in votes between the major party candidates have to become to make it clear that it's the failure of either party to convince a majority, not the presence of one or more third parties, that causes a plurality result? The question remains, should the minority party appear in the infobox? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: To clarify, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves in the infobox?" The question here is how well does the main news coverage of the election report on third-party candidates or just the top two. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Yours is a legitimate question to ponder about the role of mainstream news coverage in achieving an even playing field in politics. However, notability of a third-party candidate hinges on the degree to which that person is written about in reliable sources, fair or not. IMO that is a question for Libertarian candidates, nationwide, not just this race in Vermont. User:HopsonRoad 20:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

With User:Artaxerxes and GoodDay advocating it, it looks like an WP:RfC is the way to go. I guess that I'll find out what it is/does, along the way. User:HopsonRoad 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree This discussion is probably better held on an article talk page with an RfC. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Gender dysphoria#Changing_.22GID.22_to_.22gender_dysphoria.22_throughout_the_article

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

Filed by Megathon7 on 06:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Gender dysphoria#Changing .22GID.22 to .22gender dysphoria.22 throughout the article (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Megathon7 (talk · contribs)
• Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• Funcrunch (talk · contribs)
• Bluerasberry (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The title of the article is gender dysphoria, yet the term very frequently used in the article is GID (for gender identity disorder). Gender identity disorder was the old name of the article, and GID is an outdated term. So, I attempted to update the term GID to gender dysphoria throughout the article.

This created a dispute over whether gender dysphoria is an equivalent term for GID, and therefore a dispute over whether the term should be updated. Consensus on the talk page has not been reached on whether to use the term GID or gender dysphoria.

Edit: The relevant section on the talk page is Changing "GID" to "gender dysphoria" throughout the article Megathon7 (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies has been alerted of the dispute by another user.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance on next steps to resolve dispute, or provide clarity on whether the term GID or gender dysphoria should be used.

Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Reborn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

A new article is not needed in this case. That would be an inappropriate content fork. Use of alternative terms are usually fine, and those terms should usually be covered in the same article. In this case, it's not simply a name change. The GID criteria was changed as well, and I think it can be problematic to use the term gender dysphoria for cases, including studies, that are referring to GID. And I explained why on the talk page. So when it comes to using "gender dysphoria" throughout the article, I think it's best to update the references (as in sources, not the mentions) with the text. If a 1992 study is referring to GID, I am not sure that it's appropriate to state, "In a 1992 study on gender dysphoria." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Funcrunch

To be clear on my involvement here, I have not made any edits to the Gender dysphoria article itself during this dispute. I merely pinged the LGBT Studies WikiProject and then offered some scholarly sources along with my opinion that using the term gender identity disorder does not seem to be in favor at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Blue Rasberry

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I think this issue can be resolved as a matter of process without considering the subject matter.

I see two sides - one side wishes for the subject of the article to be described by its title. The title is somewhat controversial, as it was set by a move discussion. I favor this side, because it seems right for the decided title of an article to be the term used to describe the subject of any article.

The other side is arguing that the subject of the article be described by a term other than the title. I disregard all sourcing and context presented because I do not think this is a defensible position. Instead, I feel like if another term should be used, then the article could be renamed with due process or someone could create a new article with the new distinct term.

Talk:Gender dysphoria#Changing_.22GID.22_to_.22gender_dysphoria.22_throughout_the_article discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. I have corrected the spelling of one user name. Waiting for the filing party to notify the other editors and for responses from them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Verified All involved editors have been notified on their respective talk pages by the case filer. --JustBerry (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Added case filer Megathon7 as one of the involved editors of this case. --JustBerry (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: 4 out of the 5 involved parties have provided a dispute summary/overview. The case is ready to be moderated. --JustBerry (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: I would note that this particular request may not be ready for DRN as the requesting editor has stated in his reply to How do you think we can help;
  • "Provide guidance on next steps to resolve dispute, or provide clarity on whether the term GID or gender dysphoria should be used" DRN cannot decide how a term is used on Wikipedia. Consensus determines that with discussion. That need not be on the noticeboard and guidance for next steps is not what the noticeboard should be used for. There are many other venues for process questions. I suggest closing this request for the moment. From what I can see, there may already exist a rough consensus of editors. The closing note would be where the next step in process would be suggested as well as mentioning the MOS guideline for consistency in articles and how that may pertain here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Also of note for guidance of involved participants would be the Wikipedia guideline; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Of importance to this dispute would be the sections; WP:MEDDEF, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:MEDDATE.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: This dispute is pretty simple. The article's title is not consistently used throughout the body of the article. There are two editors that support changing all reference of GID to simply gender dysphoria and two editors that support leaving the mentions as they are. In this situation, with no clear consensus, the original content remains and the parties continue discussion. This can be accepted here or can be discussed at the project talk page or an RFC at the article talk page. This content dispute is evenly split with good arguments on both sides. The article had originally been titled Gender identity dysphoria but a recent move discussion on 24 June 2015 resulted in the article being retitled as you see it now. A further discussion on the infobox resulted in a consensus for the explanatory note to be added in brackets as; (such as the previous DSM manual, the DSM-IV-TR, under the name "gender identity disorder"). This later discussion took place in September of 2015. The basic argument for the change is to comply with consistency throughout the article and has been argued that there is further consensus to use GD in place of GID in the general academic consensus of experts. However...it has also been argued that the change needs to be made with actual, newer medical sources per guidelines of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). As a process dispute this might be better discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where further community input can help determine if sourcing the change is needed with newer medical research. As a content dispute this might do better as an RFC as the current consensus is formed from a stalemate that cannot hold. I have recused myself from this dispute but wanted to give a quick overview of what I see as the main issues. I have no objection if another volunteer wants to begin discussion or close, as I can do neither.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Elizium23 on 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Elizium23 (talk · contribs)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs)
• Urmelbeauftragter (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns the inclusion of a video and description of the practice of building an Advent Labyrinth in a specific church which has been observed for about 5 years. Whether it is a legitimate Christian custom or tradition and qualifies for coverage in this article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The original involved editor proposing inclusion has had two (now 3, that I just added) messages on his user talk page warning him about WP:PROMOTION of his favorite subjects.

Elizium23's comments here are skewed at best. Elizium23 has referred to this as "sugar-coated heresy with a cross painted on top" and has attempted to dismiss any references provided, even when the editor has provided said references. The editor removed the content calling it a "New Age/pagan practice" and when asked to give proof could not. The references do not clearly support the claim.

How do you think we can help?

By providing a neutral evaluation of the state of the sources provided and decide if this practice merits inclusion in any articles, particularly Advent.

Summary of dispute by Walter Görlitz

I removed the video that was added by Urmelbeauftragter. When Urmelbeauftragter started a discussion, per WP:BRD, I started looking for sources and found some to support that this is not a regional or local practice. There's no question that this is not a universal practice, but it has been celebrated in many locations. A simple Google search for "Advent Labyrinth" shows more than 4000 hits. The first page is an even mix of blogs and primary sources. Elizium23 claims that one of my sources is behind a pay wall. It could be that Elizium23 is in the wrong country because it's accessible from Canada. Both sources clearly indicate that advent labyrinths are not unknown. They also state that they are not common. I selected articles from Christianity Today because it is a fairly conservative Evangelical publication, but I wrongly assumed Elizium23 was an Evangelical. It appears that that Elizium23 is a [Roman] Catholic.

It's clear the practice is not mainstream, but then again, the section where this was added includes "a custom of Advent images" from Northern England, one from Normandy where children where encouraged to set farmers' fields ablaze, one from Italy, and an advent candle. None of these are mainstream practices. The first are very regional. It was placed there at my suggestion on the talk page although Urmelbeauftragter did not change the section as I suggested. I did that after reverting Elizium23's removal.

I'm not sure why Elizium23's tune has changed though. Here there is no mention of heresy or New Age/pagan practice instead focusing on promotion. Since Elizium23 raised it perhaps the editors who placed the warnings should comment here: @Joshua Jonathan: and @Moxy: (my old friend from editing Canadian articles).

I pointed out on the talk page that most of the traditions associated with both Advent and Christmas that are commonly practised today including the wreath, the tree and exchange of gifts were all at one point considered external to Christianity, but it is the practice not the origin that makes them Christian. While I too would like to see a more neutral discussion of the subject of advent labyrinths, without focusing on a specific practice, I don't think there is any reason to exclude it.

Summary of dispute by Urmelbeauftragter

Elizium23 (talk · contribs) remvoved the Advent labyrinth from the article Advent because it should be New Age/pagan practice. In the article Labyrinth in the section Christian use he removed it and replaced it by a text telling why the use of labyrinths in Christian context is "the latest fad in spirituality".

The way through the Advent labyrinth is a symbol for the way through the life. In the middle of the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg was for the last years the evangelistary. When the course participant or later the visitors of the church service walked through the labyrinth there is only one way without possibilities to stray off the course to the aim in the middle. The course in the labyrinth is sometimes near and sometimes further away from the middle but if somebody stays on track the aim will be reached. The aim in the middle of the labyrinth is the evangelistary including the Gospel.

I cannot agree with the opinion why this should be New Age or Paganism.

If I search for the German word "Adventslabyrinth" in Google I find a lot of hits (4770) like: Church of Scotland, Falkirk Presbytery Protestant Church in Heidelberg First Congregational Church Boulder CO Video about the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg by KNA (Katholische Nachrichtenagentur=Catholic News Agency)

May be the Advent labyrinth with candles like in the "Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg" is not the most important one but it isn't the only one worldwide.

Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

•  Verified Noticeable discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Resolved Notified two other involved editors of this DRN case's filing on their respective talk pages for User:Elizium23. --JustBerry (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• ω Awaiting summary of dispute statements from User:Walter Görlitz and User:Urmelbeauftragter. --JustBerry (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done--all three parties have provided case dispute overviews. --JustBerry (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer response

Hi, I am KDS4444 and I am a DRN volunteer who is willing to have a look at this dispute to see if I can help resolve it. Before I get started, I wanted to be sure that the dispute is still in progress-- it looks like this case was classified as "needing attention", which implies it was started up awhile ago and is now classified as behind schedule (though the filing date suggests otherwise). Let me also be clear that I have interacted with User:Walter Görlitz in the past and consider him a professional and ethical editor, which is bound to have some affect on my thinking process here (by laying that out, I am acting to disable its effect... Wait, isn't that fun? "Affect" and "effect"? Anyhow...). I will provide further commentary shortly. It is New Year's Eve, so my comments may have to wait for a 12-24 hours. But I am here, and am glad to see what I can do. KDS4444 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit_request_on_13_July_2016_for_.22Fascism.22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sauve.sean on 00:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016 for .22Fascism.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) Mgaudzels (talk · contribs) Orange Mike (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Current wording describes fascism as right-wing, when this is a highly controversial claim. The claim has no sources, and the trolls on the page actively monitor to prevent making the sentence more accurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive talk on the talk page. The archives show a long history of this dispute. How do you think we can help? Find the most neutral wording. Summary of dispute by Mgaudzels Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Orange Mike Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit_request_on_13_July_2016_for_.22Fascism.22 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Pablo Picasso

– New discussion.

Filed by C.Gesualdo on 16:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pablo Picasso (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• C.Gesualdo (talk · contribs)
• Modernist (talk · contribs)
• Coldcreation (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In the introduction of the article of Pablo Picasso this sentence can be found: Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics. This is not only arbitrary and arguably incomplete, there are also no sources given that actually support this statement. I brought these arguments to the Talk Page and extensively explained them, however no one is directly responding to them with counter arguments.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I explicitly asked for arguments, but none were given.

How do you think we can help?

By sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like: 'Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments...' is absolutely ridiculous.

Summary of dispute by Modernist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

To be brief; it only takes common sense to realize that the sentence being ridiculed and objected to is completely correct and easy to understand especially in the context of an article about Pablo Picasso. Picasso is undeniably one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Early in his career he encountered through Gertrude Stein a relationship with one of the leading living artists in Paris - Henri Matisse who was 10 years his senior and a leading force behind Fauvism. Picasso and Matisse [1] soon developed an artistic rivalry that they engaged in for decades that followed. When the Fauvist movement began to fade from the centerstage and artists like Georges Braque abandoned that movement for something new Cubism and it's spacial and it's textural implications predominated the avant-garde art scene. Picasso soon expanded his artistic vocabulary along with Braque by essentially inventing Cubism, modern collage, and constructed sculpture with the help of Julio Gonzalez. Picasso's work morphed during the Surrealist and Dada era; as he emerged as a titan of that time period. Marcel Duchamp slightly younger than Matisse and Picasso gave up painting and sculpture altogether in creating his readymades and declaring it's art if I say so....ultimately opening the door to Conceptualism. By the 1930s Picasso was the leading living avant-garde painter in the world. Matisse had moved to the South of France to continue his sensual, and radically decorative and articulate color paintings. The impact of Matisse begins to appear through the teaching of Hans Hofmann and the writing of Clement Greenberg. Hofmann who moved to the USA in 1933 becomes the most influential art teacher in New York from the 1930s through the 1950s. Hofmann and his knowledge of color and Matisse opens the door to artists like Mark Rothko, Clyfford Still, and Jackson Pollock; while Picasso has an enormous impact on Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning and Pollock as well. In essence Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp had an enormous impact on art in the late 20th century...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Modernist (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

To add:

• Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting, Neo-Dada, Pop Art, Conceptual Art, Performance Art, and Installation Art - major late 20th century movements can be traced to the important, vital influences of Picasso, Matisse, and Duchamp.....Abstract Expressionism is clearly also rooted in Surrealism; it was inspired by both Picasso and Joan Miro as well as Andre Masson. Matisse was a primary inspiration for both Abstract Expressionism, Color field painting and what came next including some works by the Pop artists like Tom Wesselmann and others, and finally Duchamp was enormously influential to the Nexus movement, anti-art movement, and conceptual art, installation art and performance art as well...Modernist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Coldcreation

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Pablo Picasso discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• • Your comment is not an argument, but an introduction in 20th century art history. But apart from that, I haven't denied the fact that Matisse, Picasso and Duchamp were highly influential. But to say that they're the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments (which the article does) is simply not true and quite ridiculous. And the fact that you're unable to provide any scientific sources that support the claim makes the sentence unsuitable for Wikipedia. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• As I've already said apparently you do not understand a good, concise argument when you see it. I really do not appreciate your using the word ridiculous as your comment, by the way...Modernist (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. The filing party says that this dispute can be addressed by "sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like" [is incorrect]. The purpose of this noticeboard isn't to find knowledgeable editors. Will the filing party be satisfied by moderated discussion with the other named editors (which is the purpose of this noticeboard)? If they want additional editors, they might try a request at WP:WikiProject Visual Arts. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you joking or what? I do hope you're not referring to me when you're talking about 'the filing party'. I have supplied more than enough good arguments to prove that this sentence is ridiculous. The admin on the talk page, freshacconcis, send me here. I did more than enough to end this discussion. Can this kafkaesque situation please stop? What the hell is going on here? I'm reading erroneous things in a Wikipedia article, I'm notifying people on that matter, but all the changes are reverted and no-one is willing to provide good arguments. I thought Wikipedia ought to be based on an encyclopedia... C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - User:C.Gesualdo - You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? If so, you are in the right place. Do you want other editors with a knowledge of art history to comment? If so, go to the Visual Arts project talk page. A third option is a Request for Comments. You are the filing party. You have filed this request. Do you want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@ Robert McClenon Yes, I would like to have a moderated discussion, because this is going nowhere. The two people who are now responding in the discussion - Modernist and Coldcreation - are not supplying scientific sources and refuse to give proper arguments. C.Gesualdo (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Van Helsing_(TV_series)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Pyxis Solitary on 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Van Helsing (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pyxis Solitary (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Attempts have been made to edit the *Cast and characters* section based on WP:MOSTV. 1. The addition of *Main cast* and *Recurring cast* sections were reversed with the following reason given: "according to http://www.syfy.com/vanhelsing/cast/1 all edits are nonsense". [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Helsing_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=755923325] But what appears in the Syfy website is not the guideline for what is provided, and learned, by watching the TV show. 2. The identification of "Kelly Overton as Van (Vanessa) Helsing" was reversed to "Kelly Overton as Vanessa" with the following reason given: "Names per credits - that's how we do it." [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Helsing_(TV_series)&type=revision&diff=756694380] However, Van Helsing is the title of the main character -- not "Vanessa". The opening credits simply provide the name of the actor playing Van Helsing (Kelly Overton). It does not display, for example, "Kelly Overton as Van Helsing". The name of the title character and who plays her is self-evident. The topic "Dispute resolution" was posed in the Talk page on 26 December 2016 -- for which no editor has (yet) commented. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No one has replied to the topic posted in the Talk page. How do you think we can help? The input by editors who understand WP policies and guidelines would be beneficial to the article and will help less experienced editors understand and follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Television. Talk:Van Helsing_(TV_series) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Rolfing

– New discussion.

Filed by Cyintherye on 23:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Rolfing (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cyintherye (talk · contribs)
• ronz (talk · contribs)
• roxy the dog (talk · contribs)
• alexbrn (talk · contribs)
• thatcher57 (talk · contribs)
• karinpower (talk · contribs)
• jytdog (talk · contribs)
• tronvillain (talk · contribs)
• AaronMFeld (talk · contribs)
• markbassett (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A handful of editors are monitoring the Rolfing wiki page to ensure that it remain biased against Rolfing, and include the work "quackery" in the lede, despite majority opinion by active editors that this is inaccurate and biased. The citations that use the work "quackery" are evaluating Rolfing as a psychological technique, while many peer-reviewed resources evaluate it as effective for many physical conditions, like other massage techniques. It is classified by MeSH as a "massage technique" not pseudoscience, but these comments and edits are deleted as soon as they are completed.

specifically, you can view the same argument being hashed and re-hashed in current talk page, and archives 4, 5, & 6.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

initiated and participated in talk discussions. made small edits to improve accuracy. careful reading of citations, and explanations of the content in edit description and talk pages, which are discarded and immediately reverted.

How do you think we can help?

either by helping move the page into unbiased territory and locking it from edits for one year, or by deciding arbitration that the editors agree not to change afterward. by helping with a solution none of us have yet considered.

thanks for reading!

Summary of dispute by ronz

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by roxy the dog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by alexbrn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by thatcher57

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by karinpower

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by jytdog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by tronvillain

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by AaronMFeld

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by markbassett

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Rolfing discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.