Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 52
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Prosimetrum
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Seems like a rough consensus that every addition to the list of examples needs a proper reliable source to back up the claim has been reached, otherwise it should be considered original research. In my opinion, making assumptions that "because we have a reliably sourced deffinition of prosimetrum we can add all literary works that we consider should fall under such category" is completely original research. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The article defined "prosimetrum" as a text that consisted of alternating passages of prose and poetry.[1] Two editors started expanding the list, based on the overly generic criterion of "it contains both poetry and prose".[2] When I asked the two editors to cite sources[3], they presented sources that simply stated that fact, without ever using the term "prosimetrum".[4] When I pointed out the fact that this is basically original research, and Wikipedia should not unilaterally apply rare terminology to literary works, I met with a personal attack from one[5] and my arguments were basically ignored by the other. Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum", and the article is based almost entirely on those sources (no diffs, but the two are Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, pp. 55-6, and The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, p.1115). I have tried to discuss the issue calmly, but the two editors have a very liberal definition of "original research", and I have thus far got nowhere in the discussion. I therefore would like to bring this dispute to the attention of the Wikipedia community -- WP:OR is pretty clear on this issue. If no reliable sources use a term in reference to certain works, it is OR for Wikipedia to apply the term, whether or not it is accurate (also, in most cases, it is not). elvenscout742 (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried extensively to discuss the issue on Talk:Prosimetrum, with little success. How do you think we can help? Provide an objective opinion as to whether the issue at stake is OR or not. Opening comments by DeorI've decided to walk away from this article, at least for now. Though the term prosimetrum has apparently been adopted (fairly recently) to describe a variety of works from various cultures, it has traditionally been used principally in the study of ancient and medieval European—and specifically Latin—literature. The dispute that's occurring now is the result of the arrival at the article of several editors whose main interests seem to be in Japanese and other Eastern works; this is a topic of which I have little knowledge, and I fear that the article is likely to lose focus as a result. I basically agree with Elvenscout742's position on OR in the article, and I've said so on the article's talk page, but I'm not inclined to argue further about the matter there. If I think that I have anything useful to contribute to the discussion here, I will, however, do so. Deor (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by BagwormEditor Deor has been reluctant to admit that any non-European works might be included in the term prosimetrum (cf. his reversion of my edit here) despite the fact that Prosimetrum: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Narrative in Prose and Verse, a book which has been in the Further reading section since the article was created, (largely viewable online here) deals with work from a global variety of backgrounds including Japanese, Indian, and Chinese. Elvenscout742 accepts here the broadly-held definition that "any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum", which usage is easily confirmed by a search on prosimetric at JSTOR here. Yet Elvenscout insists, against all logic, that including a work combining poetry and prose in the prosimetrum article is OR unless a citation is found applying that actual term. It is my contention that this flies in the face of common sense. If we accept that prosimetrum is "any work that combines poetry and prose" (as Elvenscout has done), then it is entirely illogical to refuse to accept the converse, that any work that combines poetry and prose is prosimetrum. Opening comments by Tristan noirMy view of the dispute is ably summarized above by Editor Bagworm. I will therefore keep my comments to a minimum. Editor Elvenscout742 accurately reports that The article until very recently consisted of a one-sentence definition and a list of "examples". The expanded opening paragraph and the paragraph on “History” are largely additions by Bagworm and Deor. Neither editor has added anything therein that might be characterized as tendentious or that might fairly be construed as OR. Their additions, in fact, are positive first steps in improving an article that all present participating editors, on the article’s Talk Page, agreed to be short on explanation. The article currently offers two brief definitions of prosimetrum as a text that is: 1) “made up of alternating passages of prose and verse,” (from the Princeton Encyclopedia, p. 1115), and 2) “the mixed form . . . when a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose” (from Peter Dronke, p. 2). I do not see how these common definitions of prosimetrum are in conflict. If a sample text is as simple as one paragraph of prose that is followed by one short verse, it is a text that has alternated from one mode of writing to the other and, simultaneously, it is a text in which “a part is expressed in verse and a part in prose.” But I mention this because Elvenscout742, above, asserts that Reliable sources cite a much more restrictive definition of the term "prosimetrum” and, on the article’s Talk Page here, has attempted to interpret the above definitions as somehow in conflict. If a reliable source provides a “much more restrictive definition,” then Elvenscout742 should cite that source and, of course, balance that citation against the many less restrictive definitions available from other reliable sources. In fact, I inquired on the Talk Page here if any editor could advance a “more restrictive definition,” but Elvenscout742 has yet to offer such a citation.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC) Prosimetrum 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. With Deor's withdrawal from the article, is there still a dispute here which needs attention in this forum? The opening statements, above, suggest that there might not be one, though perhaps I've misread or misunderstood them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The basic policy is that all information in Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source if it is likely to be challenged or has been challenged. See the verifiability policy. The very fact this dispute is taking place demonstrates that some of these examples have been challenged or are likely to be challenged, therefore the examples must be supported by a reliable source which expressly identifies each particular example as prosimetrum. While an sourcing exception can be made for things which are common knowledge, such as simple math facts such as one plus one equals two, the existence of a disagreement almost always indicates that the matter in question is not common knowledge unless one side of the disagreement flies in the face of generally accepted or scientifically proven fact, such as a argument with someone who believes the Earth is flat or that gravity is a delusion. So if there is any possibility of disagreement about whether a particular disagreement is or is not prosimetrum, then that example must be supported by a reliable source. When, as appears to be the case here, there is some disagreement over the precise definition of prosimetrum, then that possibility of disagreement certainly exists. Examples must be supported by a reliable source that expressly says that they are prosimetrum. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
It is quite clear that this reflects the general usage of the term. Brogan's exact quote in full viewable on p1115 here: "In Japanese, it [prosimetric form] is used or the collection of mythical hist. known as the Kojiki." So, as I have now shown (yet again) the sources are clear in defining the term, and in labeling the Kojiki as prosimetric. Please drop your weak and hopelessly convoluted attempts to muddy the waters, which fly in the face of the sources as clearly outlined above. Volunteers, perhaps some input from your side could put an end to this endless circling at this point? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Prem Rawat Exceptional Claims
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing - this dispute will take some time, so I'm going to handle this personally on the talk page. Steven Zhang (talk) 23:06, 21 October 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 Momento made this edit, removing long-standing, sourced material from the Prem Rawat article before we had finished discussing the matter at length here and here and now here.. A number of editors have complained that this was unwarranted. Momento claims that he removed the "unsubstantiated and probably defamatory exceptional claim about Jonestown because it did not have "multiple high-quality sources" as required". I have argued and provided evidence that this is not the case and yet he has twice now removed the material. (I once reverted it). I did not originally add this info to the article but nevertheless object to the removal of this and indeed other critical information about the subject. Since the argument is quite complex and at times heated, please could people read all the above discussions and sources before commenting? Thanks. PatW (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Invited comments from other editors which have met with no response. How do you think we can help? It's simply a matter of making an opinion as to whether Momento's reasons for removing the original wording trump the reasons I have argued. My reasoning is simply that the removed section is derived directly from a scholarly source and is supported by other scholarly sources and a number of press articles and books. I have listed these from 1-7 [here]. There is an eighth source that the original editor(s) cited. PatW (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SurdasI agree with the edit of Wnt below. Deletionism has to be ended and the readers might decide themselves. Taking out sources and criticism leaves the reader in a state of a naive child, like practised in totalitarian systems . Surdas (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Guru Maharaj Ji Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973) Now just imagine, I have a following of six million people; and whatever I tell them, they are going to do that. And among those six million people there are millions of people who are criminals. They have murdered people, they have committed many crimes. They have been to jail and they know what it's like. And if I tell them now they would do it. They would murder anyone off the street. We could be hijacking planes and stealing cars off the roads, and killing people and doing other things. But we have realized that Knowledge, and so the whole movement is completely different. Why would anybody with a clear mind says something like this? A clear sign of power dreams in an extraordinary position. Somebody with an unbalanced psyche like reported not only by Mishler/Hands but also Dettmers and others is a danger and there should be at least a mentioning of that possibility alone by the responsibility we have towards the readers. Surdas (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Rainer P.It is indeed debatable, to colport such a news item - and a news item it definitely was - in this article, for BLP reasons. I certainly have an opinion, but I would much prefer to hear an uninvolved editor or two.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by MomentoThe "exceptional claim" being discussed here is not that Mishler and Hand gave an interview that was reported on by others but their "exceptional claim" that Prem Rawat is capable of orchestrating the murder/suicide of hundreds of people. WP:VER & WP:REDFLAG mandate that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". This claim that Prem Rawat is capable of orchestrating the murder/suicide of hundreds of people has only one source, the unsubstantiated opinion of Mishler and Hand. Since no other source has made or supported such a claim it cannot be included in the article according to WP:VER. WP:REDFLAG goes on to warn about "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community ... especially in ... biographies of living people". The only scholar to comment on Mishler and Hand's interview, George Melton, ignored the Jonestown claim altogether and said "Mishner's (other) charges ... found little support and have not affected the course of the organization" clearly shows the allegation was "contradicted by prevailing view within the relevant community".[6] Mishler and Hand's allegation also fails WP:NPOV. WP:WEIGHT states "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Mishler and Hand's view that "the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat" is unique to them.Momento (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by RumitonThis is certainly a content issue. In 1979 Prem Rawat was the leader of the Divine Light Mission, an international organisation centered on meditation. The CEO and deputy of that organisation were Bob Mishler and Robert Hand. These were both prestigious positions. After Rawat saw fit to relieve them of their duties, they jointly approached US media stating that they considered Rawat capable of creating a “Jonestown-like situation.” In the atmosphere of fear that still prevailed after that horrific occurrence several months before, their remarks were widely reported. These guys were not psychologists, police officers or any kind of professionals. They were not stating any “facts” that could be checked, nor making any charges that could be investigated. They were ex-functionaries of the organisation, expressing their own opinions. According to sources, within the Divine Light Mission these charges were deemed insignificant. J. Gordon Melton writes that ‘’The charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission’’. It seems to me unworthy of Wikipedia editors to want to perpetuate them over 30 years later, especially given the caveats of living biographies. …it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I also think there has been a misunderstanding as to the meaning of “source”. The origin of this opinion was Mishler and Hand, arguably the same source. The sources that tell us that they did indeed express that opinion were quite numerous, so there is no doubt that they did say it, but they were still a tiny minority of observers of Prem Rawat at the time. It is a peculiar thing that an editor is claiming “no response “ to his objection against the removal of this material: I count over 10,000 words. Comments by Littleolive oilI am mostly uninvolved. I went to the Prem Rawat talk page after seeing a thread on Jimbo's talk page which indicated to me that the incivility level on Prem Rwat was out of control. I made a few comments and a move of summarized content from a mother article to the PR article. I left the article to the experts. My perception: This is a content dispute. Editors are at an impasse. I have suggested several times to take disputes to DR or a NB, and I think bringing discussion here is a very positive move in terms of dealing with a highly contentious article rather than leaving it on the PR talk page which has in the past apparently deteriorated into personal jabs. I think there are still personal attacks but they are less. This is a very real dispute. The article is a BLP. The sources may be questionable and at least need discussion and outside input. Discussion gets bogged down and so one editor made a bold edit when he felt discussion was done, which was contested. Both are legitimate moves in my opinion. An admin (Blade of the Norther Lights) has been keeping an eye on the article which I thinks helps editors to remember to be civil even when frustrated. I think its important in this article to deal with the sources and content, and to remind editors civility does count, that Notice Boards are there to help out when content is disputed, that disputing content is pretty normal on contentious articles on controversial topics. But in the end this is a content dispute about whether the sources are mainstream enough, reliable, and have enough "weight" to support the inclusion of the highly pejorative content in a BLP article.(olive (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)) Quick comment by WntI haven't looked at this dispute before, but from a reading of the disputed text and the quotations cited from the sources, my initial impression is that both sides here should make another try at a compromise. There is some connotation in the word "warned", the way the sentence is written, which fails to make it clear enough that this was an allegation from "the dead past", during the immediate aftermath of the Jim Jones suicide. I suppose if it happened today people would be lambasting it under "notnews". I don't believe we should omit news coverage, but we really have to work hard to clarify the context. Normally "claimed" is a WTA, but here I see multiple sources using that word, to distance themselves from the allegation, and I'm thinking it is in this case more appropriate than "warned". I have the impression that these are more or less disgruntled ex employees, the Larry Sangers of Rewat's group, and if so any bias that might affect their POV should be discernable. In any case, please, do not delete the source citation itself. There has to be some sentence you can write out of that Washington Post source, or even another sentence to stick it onto, which will maintain it for readers to look up and make their own judgments. Loss of sources is a sure sign that deletionism has gone too far. I made an edit to illustrate what I had in mind [7] - I don't plan to hang out on this article or fight to keep this version; I'm just putting it up as my idea. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Quick comment by Jayen466I agree with Wnt (and it's not often I say that); my feeling too was that it was the wording that was at fault, rather than the inclusion of the item. I would have preferred a wording that referred to the intense loyalty both leaders inspired in their followers, and how that led to the comparison. But I actually think Wnt's edit is a decent stab at solving this. Most of all, I do not think the issue is such a huge deal one way or the other. AndreasKolbe JN466 22:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Prem Rawat Exceptional Claims 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.
Yes.See here. Thanks.PatW (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
|
High-fructose corn_syrup_and_health
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | DRN requires extensive discussion before bringing a dispute to the noticeboard. This request was filed on 19 October, the same day that the talk page discussion began.SGCM (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This request is for advice on whether sections I wrote adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, and whether it is thought they belong in this article. I am trying to include pertinent, sourced, objective information on a health topic that is political and controversial, and find that my contributions are being entirely eliminated using illegitimate excuses (not important, studies shouldn't be included, etc.) I'd love some feedback regarding how I can make these sections iron-clad in terms of policy. The article is high-fructose corn syrup and health. It has been attacked by both pro- and anti-advocates and wrecked so that it reads like a pamphlet. I want to include: 1. The findings from the 2009 American Medical Association report to Congress specifically examining health effects of HFCS 2. Information about a 2010 Princeton Study. It is newsworthy, and it is highly likely that a reader might go to Wikipedia to get information about this. I have sourced the material and presented two opposing points of view, making sure to summarize that the study did not change the opinion of the medical community. 3. USDA dietary guidelines regarding HFCS and added sugars. These directly relate to health and HFSC and represent current U.S. government guidelines and recommendations. This is the most important thing to include in this article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? My sections have been repeatedly deleted using thin excuses. The other parties won't message me about concerns...they find one word they don't like and delete everything I've done. How do you think we can help? Give some general advice. Do you think the three sections (AMA recommendation, Princeton study, USDA Guideline) belong? All, some, none? Is there biased or unnecessary info? What would you cut/add/leave? As a writer, I want this article to be useful, informative and accurate while remaining objective. Opening comments byPlease 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.
High-fructose corn_syrup_and_health 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! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party volunteer. DRN requires extensive discussion before bringing a dispute to the noticeboard. The talk page discussion began yesterday on 19 October. Although I understand your concerns, keep in mind that the noticeboard is not a substitute for talk pages--SGCM (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Dispute at Vietnam War Talk Page on Vietnamese Wikipedia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This noticeboard is for disputes on the English wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org), not the Vietnamese Wikipedia (vi.wikipedia.org). Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview At September 1, 2012 IP 118.71.4.68 suggests replacing Vietnam Mural picture by another picture. At September 18, 2012, I used Soranto account to replace Vietnam Mural picture by Vietnam Sides picture created by me on Vietnam War Summary because I thought Vietnam Mural picture only presents America side but there are 4 sides in Vietnam war. Some other members didn’t agree with me so we made a discussion on this topic at Vietnam War Talk Page (Vietnamese version). The discussion started at September 13, 2012 then closed at October 2, 2012. Other members didn’t present the suitable reason to replace Vietnam Sides picture by the old Vietnam Mural picture so we still used Vietnam Sides picture. At October 10, 2012, I created Saboche account to replace Soranto account because Soranto account was hacked. At that time the discussion on picture at Vietnam War Summary had finished at October 2, 2012. At October 13, 2012 I started a discussion on picture of Vietnam War Summary at Vietnam War talk page because some other members continue want to replace Vietnam Sides picture by Vietnam Mural picture. At this time I used Saboche account because I lost control Soranto account. In the discussion I just said “There are 2 sides, each side has 2 sub side . The Soranto’s picture is very suitable. It presents 2 sides, each side has 2 sub side. Why we have to turn back to the old picture ?” I said that because I think Vietnam Sides picture is suitable and the owner of the picture is Soranto account so I have to use “Soranto’s picture” to call the picture. At October 14, 2012 the member named Vô tư lự requested DHN administrator checked Saboche account because he doubted Saboche is a sock puppetry of Soranto. DHN discovered that Soranto and Saboche is logged in from one computer. DHN concluded that Saboche is the sock puppetry of Soranto. He immediately blocked Soranto and Saboche infinitively. The reason for his action is Saboche was created to make an illusion of support. Have you tried to resolve this previously? At October 15, 2012, I requested DHN to remove blocking Soranto and Saboche and started a discussion about this problem at Saboche's talk page. I presented all evidences to prove that I was not guilty as I’m presenting to you but DHN denied removing blocking Soranto and Saboche. He talked that he didn’t care the fact that I had lost control Soranto before I created Saboche account. He talked that’s my bussiness so he didn’t want to consider. How do you think we can help? Now I have only one choice that is to make an Amendment request to Arbitration Committee. I hope arbitrator will remove blocking Saboche and Soranto account. Opening comments by DNHPlease 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 SorantoPlease 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 MarakaPlease 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.
(Non-administrator comment)
|
Yoga
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No recent discussion, conduct dispute, improper forum (for advice consider Editor Assistance, but you might want to consider the advice given by regentspark at Talk:Yoga#Quality_Issues:_Lede, first). — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am having rather a frustrating time introducing your policies to a topic that unsurprisingly attracts a lot of fans who can be quite quick to revert other peoples edits - sometimes correctly - sometimes a bit nit-picky - but generally without any spirit of cooperation or any will or desire to work on forming a consensus. The actions of this user seem quite aggressive in their editing of this topic - eg. making lots of changes in quick succession over extended periods which makes collaboration unduly difficult and appears to be quite unfriendly and uncooperative - also posting unnecessary warning notices on my User talk page about edit warring, possibly to intentionally intimidate me. I am not interested in battling people about "what is yoga?" or redacting anyone's efforts since the article is fairly mature and good. I just want to make the introduction balanced and comprehensive enough to accommodate all the main points in the article - not the points that might be in the head of one particularly enthusiastic editor. I am clear that this dispute is not about yoga, it's about Wikipedia policies on writing a good lede for the subject in question. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Added issue to topic talk page. Added notice to lede section inviting discussion and call to improve lede quality. Investigated possible sock puppetry - inconclusive - requires further specialist, expert investigation. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate some advice as to how to deal with this sort of irritating annoyance since I just want to make the leader of the article more balanced and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, there seems to be no appetite for discussion and my interest in making the top part of the article better is being eroded by what I think is persistent, uncharitable behavior, and an agenda that only seems to crowd out Wikipedias own standards. Opening comments by CorrectKnowledgePlease 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.
Yoga 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.
|
Calamba, Laguna
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No talk page discussion as required by this noticeboard. If you feel that your edits are justified by policy, consider filing a report at the administrator's noticeboard or perhaps filing a request for comments to draw in other editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:WikiCalambenyo keeps on reverting my edits in one shot without any explanation. I try to improve the article in line with existing WP policies and guidelines, but it seems WikiCalambenyo is acting like the article's owner. I have tried to reach out to this user through his talk page and the article's talk page, but no replies. Now I'm bringing the issue here because undoing his reversals will make it seem I'm breaking the WP:3RR rule. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to reach out to this user through WikiCalambenyo talk page and the article's talk page, but no replies. How do you think we can help? Either try to get User:WikiCalambenyo to engage in discussion, or provide 3rd party opinion on the issue. Opening comments by WikiCalambenyoPlease 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.
Calamba, Laguna 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.
|
Windows 8
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus is to include a Reception section instead of a Criticism section. SGCM (talk) 21:38, 23 October 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 Windows 8 has been plagued with notable criticism with coverage from reliable sources (primarily revolving its new interface, secure boot, the Windows Store, etc.). Despite Wikipedia policy dictating that an article most reflect all significant views that have been published by reliable sources, Codename Lisa has asserted that because a section devoted to criticism of a subject is "usually miscellaneous", it means that it falls under the scope of WP:TRIVIA because, even when divided in sections (like how the criticism of Windows Vista is, which was also notable for some key issues), they being considered to be a "list of miscellaneous information" and thus, not allowed. By lacking any reference to these important and very relevant issues, the article, aside from the secure boot section (which some think put undue weight on free sofrware supporters), is engineered to be pro-Microsoft propaganda which glosses over its issues. Long discussions have been held on the talk page regarding the relevance of its criticism, but it desperately needs more opinions. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? We need firm considerations on what is considered to legitimately be "trivia", and we need a way to deal with the criticism in a manner that is consistent with our guidelines. Opening comments by Codename LisaPlease 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.
Hi. I have no problem with criticism in general; in fact I have said "you can find well-organized reception sections; well, since they are not purely criticism (potentially POV) and are not miscellaneous, they are okay." What I disagree with is "unorganized fragments of criticism gathered from around". A heap of undue sentences does not gain due weight because of its shear volume. (There is no such thing as legitimate trivia.) Fragmented criticism with due weight must be merged into the rest of the article. Best regards, Opening comments by SudoGhostPlease 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.
There is no issue with reliably sourced, unbiased, appropriate criticism. The issue is with criticism for the sake of having it, placed in a "Criticism" section. Negative content should be integrated into the appropriate sections instead of awkwardly thrown together into its own WP:UNDUE section. - SudoGhost 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Jasper DengPlease 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.
At first thought, criticism is not trivia. However, I feel that 1 - it's undue weight to elaborate on secure boot concerns any more than what we have now (there was a large discussion on this, and consensus was in favor of the current mention of it), and 2 - reception is not really proper until Windows 8 is released (1 week from now, we can wait). I previously reverted the OP of this thread because of concerns about the amount of weight given to secure boot concerns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by A Quest For KnowledgePlease 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 59.182.32.7Please 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 from uninvolved editor FuturetrillionaireWindows 8 is just coming out. Obviously there will be more information coming out soon. I've done a brief search for criticisms of the coming OS, and have found few. Most of the ones I found were not entirely clear. I did found this interesting article discussing complaints from game developers. [8] I think this might be worth including. If people can find some serious, clear criticisms, and I'm sure some will surface after the release of the OS, then definitely include it in the article. Trivial criticism, criticisms that are not widely reported, should not be included. My suggestion is to find serious criticisms, or if there isn't much, wait a week or so for them to surface. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor CrispmuncherPurely as an informational note I will direct the reader to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1 where similar concerns of pro-Microsoft coverage have been expressed against at least two of the editors involved here. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC). Windows 8 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! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. I'm a third party volunteer who frequents the noticeboard. Waiting on the opening comments.--SGCM (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
After reviewing the opening statements, it's apparent that there is a strong consensus to include a reception section instead of a criticism section, and only after the product has been released, a consensus that I concur with. Unless there are any further objections, this case should be closed as Resolved.--SGCM (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
If there are no further comments, this case will be closed within 24 hours.--SGCM (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Attribution of recent climate change
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Sending this back to article talk for further discussion, with option of opening another case if needed later. Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
< span style="font-size:110%">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 Added long-term climate change data which is necessary to provide context for short term data, which this page is missing entirely. The article contains only data that supports anthropogenic attributions. The editor who has reverted my change (twice because I was still editing when reverted the first time), seems to have a history of removing valid data from this page if it doesn't support anthropogenic causes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive justification for adding the data on the talk page. Response from other party is simply that the information is "obviously" not relevant, but offers no reason. How do you think we can help? Please look at the change I made. It simply references a single set of data that shows the levels of temperature, CO2,and aerosol (dust) over the long term. It is offered as context. Please provide an objective opinion of whether the contextual data is inappropriate or relevant. Opening comments by William_M._ConnolleyNote that the state of the discussion just-before-this-DR-opened was [9]. Subsequent to the DR opening two other editors have pointed out to Mh that his addition doesn't look good. Escalating this to DR so early looks wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Talk:Attribution of recent climate change discussionHi! 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. I am a bit concerned about the limited efforts that have been made to reach consensus on the article talk page. Would everyone concerned by willing to go back and spend a few days trying to reach an agreement? We can always reopen this case if the discussion fails. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Pi Kappa_Alpha
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Per DRN instructions, this forum is not available when other dispute resolution processes are in progress and the RFC has not yet been closed. If the RFC does close without consensus, but with good participation from the community, then per the Consensus policy, the material cannot be added to Wikipedia: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove textual material, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the text as it was prior to the proposal." — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Pi Kappa Alpha received world wide attention over butt chugging incident which can easily be located on Google. There was coverage by mainstream in great details by outlets including CBS and CNN. The article has a table for "notable alumni" and such, but no section on notable incidents. I have started a RfC and there's no clear consensus. So how does it work here when there's a disagreement on adding something? There's no consensus on leaving it out vs adding it. I added it initially but was removed immediately by Fat & Happy. There's been more coverage in the press since then. This is where it was removed [10] Have you tried to resolve this previously? RfC, talk page. How do you think we can help? To advise if its alright if I go ahead and add it or if I need to wait until consensus is reached. Opening comments by Fat&HappyPlease 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.
Pi Kappa_Alpha 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.
|
The Disney Afternoon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No extensive talkpage discussion, as required by this noticeboard and all other dispute resolution processes. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview there are rumors of The Disney Afternoon "coming back" in 12/2012 these rumors where (most likly) started on YouTube (witch we all know is unreliable) Have you tried to resolve this previously? explained it to them How do you think we can help? not sure Opening comments by DoniagoPlease 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 207.235.163.2Please 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.
The Disney Afternoon 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.
|
MMR vaccine controversy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | User:Nernst using an IP address in apparent sockpuppetry.[11] Feel free to re-file using your real name and a page name that actually exists. Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 24 October 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 I am worried that some of the content in the opening is potentially libelous regarding Andrew Wakefield, a living individual. The individual is not popular and has attempted previous libel actions which have not gone to trial. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page but other editors have focused on reverting rather than engaging. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted to encourage collaberation and discussion, used BDR approach with suitable breaks How do you think we can help? Adjudicate a 'safe state' for the article to remain in, while debate continues Opening comments by SkepticalRaptorPlease 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 MistyMornPlease 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 TenofalltradesPlease 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 McSlyPlease 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 IRWolfie-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.
This is malformed, and by an edit warring IP where the discussion that has taken place has demonstrated that there is a consensus for the material to stay in the article. I suggest it be closed. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC) MMR vaccine controversy 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.
IRWolfie's statement seems spot on to me -- anon IP/SPA edit warrior and an odd malformed DR request. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Australian Christian Lobby
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Consensus have been reached over the two main issues. Further discussion will be held on the talk page. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview What is going on ? Continuing 'creative paraphrasing', deletions and rewordings which are not in conformity with WP:PG. Refer to the audit trail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&action=history What is the issue for dispute resolution ? On the article Talk Page I have detailed my concerns and have made polite offers to try resolve the issues - without success. The relevant article Talk Page discussion starts at: Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#Concern_about_alleged_complete_bias.2C_factual_correctness.2C_violation_of_NPOV.2C_bold_edits_and_consensus-building. The responses are characterised by repeated, inadequately explained, article revisions. Two examples of the problems are observable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=518282498&oldid=518271777 For the first example: The (repeated) insertion of the para > "It should be noted . . " is contested. The 5 references cited, contain no mention of the Australian Christian Lobby. The para is obviously intended to 'advance a position'. This badly undermines the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
Editor Freikorp has tried to mediate. I thank him for that. He had requested a consensus opinion on a the original source for the introductory para. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#trowelandsword.org.au The consensus was, to use a self-published source WP:SELFSOURCE for the introductory 'about themselves' para. In the second (latest revison) example: A simple sentence (14 words) is yet again deleted. How do you think we can help? To assist in resolving these problems, I will focus on two issues. Considering the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=518282498&oldid=518271777
Opening comments by GrotekennisPlease 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 Dominus VobisduPlease 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 FreikorpFirstly my COI declaration. I do not like the ACL, I am morally opposed to their views on many things, such as homosexuality. I have added many criticism of the ACL to the article (always attempting to adhere to guidelines while doing so of course.) Sam56mas and I have had many disagreements over this article. I tend to agree with all his concerns here however. I am bothered by what I would also describe as 'creative paraphrasing'. I am also bothered by the inclusion of many references that do not mention the ACL, added by Grotekennis. Whilst I personally agree with Grotekennis's apparent opinion that the ACL have twisted facts etc, Grotekennis doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is not an opinion article, and that you cannot build a paragraph criticising the ACL using references that do not mention them. I am not opposed to an introduction paragraph that uses the ACL's own website of a reference, as per TheRedPenOfDooms comments at this RSN discussion. Freikorp (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Australian Christian Lobby 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. Examinating the dispute, i see two main issues to be solved: (1) the writing style being used in the article; and (2) the use of several sources to back up statements that are not directly in relation/or make any mention of the subject, the ACL. Lets go one by one. (1) is about how the article should be written. Well, it should adhere to Wikipedia policies and I believe that "It should be noted..." and similar ones are not of encyclopedic quality and therefore unacceptable. Also, to answer one of the first questions: using first-party sources to introduce a subject is often useful and a good practice if you keep in mind that, when doing so, you have to write such information with a neutral point of view. As an example, you can use a first party source to state: "Microsoft is an american software manufacturer based in Boston and founded in 1975 by Bill Gates."; you can't use a first party source to back up this claim: "Microsoft became the world's largest company in 1987." You need a reliable, third party source for that, even if the Microsoft site says so. So, let's evaluate and assess first the sriting style, and then get into the reliability and selection of sources. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm still certainly interested in resolving these issues. I couldn't help but notice Dominus Vobisdu said he wasn't interested in this discussion, and the only other editor opposing these concerns has a bit of a habit of not replying to messages, so I'm not surprised he hasn't joined in here yet. This is kind of helpful in the sense this means these changes can probably go ahead unopposed now, since nobody can be bothered giving their opinion against them. Freikorp (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC) I have not had time to take part in this, but I believe I've explained myself quite well in both edit summaries and on the article talk page in regard to the matters at hand. Additionally I feel that this should be sorted out on the article talk page. --Grotekennis (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC) I am very determined that these matters be properly resolved. Sam56mas (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk: Misha B
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview We are having trouble deciding how to document a controversy on the Misha B article. During her time on The X Factor, she was accused of bullying and me and other editors are disagreeing on how to include the events with compliance to BLP guidelines. Sionk's most recent proposal: "Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. However, judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest." Zoeblackmore's most recent proposal: "Bryan became subject of a controversy during a live show in week three when judge Tulisa accused the singer of making "mean comments" and judge Walsh a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants leapt to Bryan’s defence.[4] Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the contest, "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not."[5] However good Bryan's performances were that followed the damage was done, she never recovered from the accusation. [6][7][8]..."
Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the article talk page. See also UPDATE: The current issue seems to have been resolved on the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Decide which proposal would be best to include. Opening comments by ZoeblackmorePlease 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.
In the First Place I don't think it should be covered at all. But if it is, then it must be covered that clearly shows a NPOV. SHOULD IT BE INCLUDED What is said on a reality TV series by celebrities (in the spirit of making headlines & publicity) & subject to a UK gutter press media circus should be taken with a pinch of salt. Each year X Factor labels contestants as bullies, rebels, underdogs, diva's its all part of the script. Surely "Accusations" on "reality shows" are not of actual biographical value & irrelevant for Wikipedia. The remains absolutely no verifiable evidence about her bullying on the show, in fact the is very strong evidence of the opposite, if it did not happen then why raise it? It is too controversial & unreliable to be included on someone's biography page. If B had been accused by someone of a crime to which the was no evidence or no witnesses, the main accuser apologies the next day & all the witnesses say she was innocent would a reputable source still print the story? What makes her notable for Wikipedia now is not the X factor at all. It is becoming less relevant to this artists notability .e.g. one editor here put her several month competition history under a drop down menu on the page..another editor actively prevented an article before her first single because the events on xfactor where deemed not notable enough. I doubt whether it should be even covered on the XFactor 8 page. IF IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED Just because a false allegation by a celebrity is verifiable from a reality TV show, does not mean Wikipedia should cover it & disregard NPOV record of the event. Practically all the attempts to include the saga by other editors up so far have been one sided, based on unreliable UK tabloid new reports (not reliable sources for controversial events) To briefly mention just the widely believed (but false) accusation would merely gives the false accusation & rumours undue weight, & is likely seriously mislead the the unknowing reader... the reader is likely to consider that accusation was true. Wikipedia states she was accused of bullying = the must be truth behind it, nothing here says she didn't”. Mud sticks. The reader can only make fair NPOV judgement if all the authoritative facts are presented. . If one side of a controversial accusation is raised, then you need to present the other, with equal weight & space. Where the is very strong, more authoritative verifiable evidence that this was a wrongful accusation, then it should be given more space. If all the potential victims & witnesses denied it happened then a record of their statements is relevant and important in recording a NPOV report of the saga? The quote from Barlow "You have been wrongfully accused in the past of being someone that you are not.... I don't think you can win this competition because of that & that's a real shame" is authoritative as the reports of the original accusations by Walsh & Tulisa. COMPROMISE However I am very tired on the constant battling I have had on this issue over the last 4 months
........and so I am willing to compromise. Bryan was involved in a controversy during the third live show when judge Tulisa Contostavlos accused her of making "mean comments" and judge Louis Walsh accused her of being a "bully" backstage. Both later apologised. The other two panel members and several contestants defended Bryan during and after the show. Judge Gary Barlow later said he believed the wrongful allegations had ended Bryan's chances of winning the competition. which needs to be written to fit Guy Macon (talk) recommendation below When dealing with TV reality shows, the concept of "reporting events" needs to be approached with care. The "events" you see on your TV set are edited to show a certain story. Because of this, when possible use language like "In episode three, viewers saw John argue with Mary" or "John was shown arguing with Mary" rather than "John argued with Mary". ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
In contrast all Wikipedia bio's of music artists have an early life section it would be rather odd to leave it out;) Bryans early life is reliably documented, not an unsupported and controversial allegation and is relevant as it describes the first steps of her career. ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SionkAs per Jennie's overview, there have been repeated attempts by a number of editors over a number of months to mention the allegation of bullying in the article, which was a notable and lasting controversy during the TV contest where Misha B was centrally involved. In contrast, one of the editors in this 'dispute' prefers to expunge all mention of the 'b' word. Bullying is a hot topic, rousing passions and I have some sympathy with this editor's concerns. However, in my view a satisfactory compromise would be to have a brief, factual mention of the allegations. Generally I can't remember any editor asking for a lengthy section about the controversy, but to have no mention gives the impression of censorship. The controversy is covered in more detail on the X_Factor_(UK_series_8) article. Sionk (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by WikimuckerI am entirely in agreement with Jennie--x and Sionk on this. Wikimucker (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Talk: Misha B#Addressing the controversy 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 also 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. Full disclosure: I have worked on several TV shows (but not X Factor) on the technical end of things. If anyone thinks I am unconsciously showing bias, please let me know and I will withdraw. It looks like the specific issue has been resolved, but if you don't mind, I would like to cover a couple of general priniples before we close this, just so that everyone is on the same page. When dealing with TV reality shows, the concept of "reporting events" needs to be approached with care. The "events" you see on your TV set are edited to show a certain story. Because of this, when possible use language like "In episode three, viewers saw John argue with Mary" or "John was shown arguing with Mary" rather than "John argued with Mary". Here are a couple of articles on this topic: Serious: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1154194,00.html Humorous: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-secrets-making-reality-tv-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ Wikipedia style: Reality television#"Reality" as misnomer --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
|
The Australian
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Insufficient prior talk page discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview partisan editor repeatedly deleting text and links regarding studies that have found bias in The Australian's reporting on Climate Change Have you tried to resolve this previously? tried talk; re-edited. skylink still insists on mis-reading and deleting references. How do you think we can help? review history, refences and advise on suitability of text and edits. Skylink is similarly partisan at a number of sites. I request they be asked to use talk rather than directly delete/edit anything they don't like politically. Opening comments by skylinkPlease 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.
The Australian newspaper 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.
|
Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved by explanation of policy and information about how to seek a change of policy. — TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have been going through the Stargate SG-1 series as I watch them and have been removing the spoilers for each show. I have changed the episode summaries to still be able to know which episode is which, but have removed the spoilers for the episodes so it does not ruin the show for those who have not seen them before. I would like other people to look at the changes I have made, and then look at the other summaries and ask yourself, if you had not seen the show, would that summary not ruin it for you? If people want to do individual writeups for each episode providing every tidbit of information about that episode, then they should be able to do that. That way there is both a basic plotline for people to see without ruining the show, AND there is a section where there can be all the other info available. Thank you for your time. Josh
I have suggested that he leaves a basic summary for people who have not seen the show previously and if he wants to provide extra information on the episode, then he can link to another page that contains all other information about the episode. How do you think we can help? Read each of our summaries, ask yourself if that ruins the show for others who have not seen it. And then suggest to him if he wants to provide more information, to do so on another page. Opening comments by AussieLegendPlease 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.
Hua89 has been removing "spoilers" from the Stargate SG-1 season articles despite WP:SPOILER, which clearly states "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." This is a guideline that has wide consensus as we need to treat content encyclopaedically, not like a fansite. Use of spoilers has been discussed at length in appropriate forums,[12] and WP:TVPLOT specifically encourages spoilers. "His/her edits have quite appropriately been reverted by one other editor and Cluebot.[13][14] I've tried to explain that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, both at his talk page and mine, to no avail.[15][16] Replacement of concise plot summary information with teasers, which is Hua89's method of dealing with spoilers,[17] is unencyclopaedic and therefore unacceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Stargate Season 1-5 All episodes 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. AussieLegend is absolutely correct. Wikipedia rules expressly allow spoilers and do not allow content to be removed merely because it is a spoiler. (That rule also prohibits adding spoiler warnings to articles, by the way.) Removing text for that reason is a violation of policy and continuing to do it after being informed of the policy may cause you to be blocked or banned for disruptive editing. If you disagree with that policy, the proper way to proceed is to seek to have the policy changed through the procedure described in the Policy policy (not a typo), not by editing in a way that violates it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with their policy then and have sent a formal complaint to wiki management. There IS a solution to this and that is having BOTH a page for basic plot outlines and a link to the episode in question with further information as is shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_%28Stargate_SG-1%29 Why can't there be both? Hua89 (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I sent it to info-en-o@wikimedia.org. Hua89 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Berber people
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing due to lack of participation, here or on the article talk page. Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [Supplemental note: the Talk page does have detailed discussion, but it is many months old. Discussion should be revived in Talk page first, and brought to DRN only after it stalls there, again. --Noleander (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC) ] |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Users refusing proved facts of berber ancestry of ± known people. The Talk page gives more information about the made consensus. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Waiting How do you think we can help? third party opinion Opening comments by Iadrian yuPlease 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 have reverted 2 edits by User:Dominic20 which I considered as a unexplained removal of images, some tags and infobox. I noticed afterwards by this [18] that I got in the middle of something else. I did`t intended to agree or disagree with anybody. My edits were aimed at reverting complete removal of data removed by Dominic20. Adrian (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by JovanAndreanoPlease 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 -Omar-toonsPlease 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 JayjgPlease 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 Amazigh-causePlease 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 TachfinPlease 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 William ThweattPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
Talk:Berber people 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.
Hi! 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. I am not opening the thread for comments yet; Right now we are waiting for more editors to make their opening comments above. While we are waiting, I encourage you all to read the guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Atlas Shrugged: Part II
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | I am going close this for now and ask you to ask for an opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and then to re-file the case here if that does not resolve the issue. Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Rahmspeed, User:Jonathan Hemlock and to a lesser degree User:DiligenceDude have hijacked this article. Claiming a consensus between themselves and, according to JH, many other editors, they (JH particularly) insist on adding the Rotten Tomatoes user rating to the reception section in an apparent attempt to discredit the overwhelming negative reviews the film received. This explains why it is done no where else, but they persist, even when other film editors weigh in.[19][20] Worrying to me is deliberately misrepresenting the significance of the user rating figure. This shows Rahm falsely claiming a user rating was something special introduced for this movie, and the less active User:DiligenceDude can be seen here falsely citing this Fox News article as referencing the user rating. I can no longer assume good faith, so I defer to resolution. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? People have tried to explain this on the talk page, to no avail. JH cites "consensus" and WP:IAR. How do you think we can help? It seems reasonable to assume this (call it what it is) shilling of the film is inspired by partisan politics, and consequently, I don't know what can be done in mediation. Nevertheless, I feel I can just let the situation remain as is. Opening comments by RahmspeedPlease 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 Jonathan HemlockPlease 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 DiligenceDudeI wasn't "attempting to hijack a thread." That is a is a gross mischaracterization. I was merely trying to add a properly sourced piece of pertinent information from a valid third party news source. Fox News. Wikipedia has both rules encouraging and a tradition of accepting major news outlets as verifiable, reliable sources, since these organizations have the staffing required for fact checking. If you look at my editing history, you will see that I have had NO NEXUS with the other editors that also made good faith edits, trying to add this same referenced piece of information. I'm not part of any cabal, nor am I anyone's sock puppet. I am an independent editor. I simply made the same commonsense conclusion as several other editors. I am baffled by the unwillingness of some editors to accept a properly referenced piece of pertinent information that came from a valid third party news source. DiligenceDude (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC) My apologies - I just listed you because I knew you'd be part of JH's "consensus". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Atlas Shrugged: Part II 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.
|
The Bible_and_slavery
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Request refused as improper posting (block evasion) by sockpuppet of blocked user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalai_lama_ding_dong and linked archives. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am new wiki user, I have a roving IP. I do not understand the full ins and outs of wiki so I do need someone to look over something to make sure procedures that must be in place at wiki are forfilled. I made a notification on the talk page 6 weeks ago that I believed this page had an Authenticty of information problem which was agreed upon with another member (see talk page). After 6 weeks of waiting around for responses to my query about this page I decided to edit. I do not know if this is the required time to wait but I decided it was ample. There are already notices on the page querying the neutrality of the subject matter. I agreed with this. With me putting the notice on the page someone put an add on to the page which states; This article improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. (September 2012) I decided to start changing wording which better discribed what was going in the article belive this is (TW)(all new terminology I am using). This tinkering brought people to the page to change back what I was changing. See Page History They are saying that dictionary defintions and enyclopedias are (OR) but checking on the (OR) page I find this to be Teritory Sources which the page says is ample to edit with. I also believe I do not need (OR) because as with 'Paris is in france' does not need a ref, then changing this word becuase it is used in the dictionaries and enclyclopedias does not need (OR) either. I have been attacked by a sock-puppet trying to make these changes (see talk page), and now the page is locked from making changes. I believe there is a deeper motivation going on here then protecting wiki as to protect one faith. I believe this page is starting to become a blot on the wiki landscape, with the persons who look after the page refusing to not acknowledge the attrocites made to women in the time of Classical Antiquity because it may damage the perception of a particular religion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have been using the talk page for 6 weeks and people in my opinion do not understand the Philosophy of Language. The talk page where I have notified people of my understanding of the page is now coming under attack. Currently taking a Master of Philsophy course (MPhil) at a top 100 University How do you think we can help? I need a third person to look over this dispute and make a decision (being a new user) I do not know the full ins and outs of wiki protocols and ettiquettes. As a user without a name or fixed IP I would like the findings, if possible to be put on the talk page. Opening comments by nullPlease 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 byPlease 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.
The Bible_and_slavery 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.
|
Windows Server 2012
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | No prior talk page discussion. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am concerned about the meaning of the cell colors in Editions table of Windows Server 2012 article. I feel the colors at the top section are completely meaningless. At the bottom, the green color is used for "Yes"(meaning that the feature is present), the red is used for "No" (meaning that the feature is absent) and yellow is used for "Partial" (meaning that the feature is present only to some extents). But at the top, silvery gray, light red, green, cyan and yellow are used but they are meaningless. For example why the term "unlimited" is sometimes green and sometimes cyan? Why some numbers are light red and some are yellow? Have you tried to resolve this previously? I discovered that we have a dispute over the cell colors. Normally, this is not even considerable but in this case, it took me a while. How do you think we can help? We need to establish a guideline for using color guidance in editions table of Windows Server 2012 article. Every color must have an indisputable meaning. I am open to negotiation and I think mediation is what is needed. Opening comments by Jasper DengPlease 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 color-coding scheme is used in other Windows edition comparison articles. I feel that if there's still a licensing limitation on a feature it should not be marked as a full yes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Windows Server 2012 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 can find no prior discussion, much less extensive discussion, of this issue at the article talk page or on either editor's user talk page. Such discussion is a prerequisite to obtaining dispute resolution services. Perhaps I'm just overlooking it, however. Could one or the other of you please give a link to that discussion? Please note that discussion via edit summaries cannot satisfy that requirement. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: I'm going to AGF and accept your statement about a prior discussion and refrain from closing this listing, but let me suggest that many DR volunteers, myself included, want to review the prior discussion as part of their decision whether or not to help with a dispute and, if they do decide to do so, also as part of their preparation for working on the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I am another dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Unless I see convincing evidence of extensive prior discussion in the next 24 hours, I will close this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Saxophone
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved. Editors have agreed to work together on a stand-alone list, List of concert works for saxophone. xanchester (t) 14:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview In the middle of this article there is a list of repertoire for saxophone. I have added missing major contemporary works that keep being removed by Saxophilist. On the talk pages Saxophilist keeps using the word 'standard' to refer to what works should be included here. Standard is subjective. Saxophilist has not even heard of the composers whose works I am trying to add and only offered derogatory comments about one - Xenakis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk pages - of the article and on talk pages of Hstokar and Saxophilist How do you think we can help? To rectify I would like to suggest that ALL of the 'repertoire' be moved to separate page(s) - where anyone/everyone can add repertoire and this becomes less subjective. For one writer to control what is on a short list is simply not right by wiki standards (would be fine on his/her own personal web page). Opening comments by SaxophilistHello, the pieces that he is trying to add to the article are not standards in the repertoire. A lot the ones he tried to add are experimental and are only played by very few musicians. I asked a university saxophone professor and he said he's only familiar with 2 of hstokar's pieces. Also, the list on Saxophone should be kept to 25 pieces, as to stop it from getting too long and to stop people from just adding their favorite concerto or such. Also, the quartet list needs to be kept to 10 pieces. I suggested last week that a new article be created entitled "Saxophone repertoire", where people could add any piece of the saxophone repertoire that they can think of. I know that the violin has a similar page for repertoire, and I'm sure other instruments do as well. Saxophilist (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Also, who is eliotgattegno? I suspected he was a sock-puppet of hstokar, but I could be mistaken. Look at his edits, they are exactly the same a hstokar's. Saxophilist (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by EliotgattegnoPlease 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.
Saxophone 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! Thank you for submitting a DRN request. The contested section has no citations. The composition of the list must be supported by reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, the list may qualify as original research.--xanchester (t) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Along the lines of Xanchester's comment, I believe WP:Source list trumps all other concerns. But given that guideline, I don't see why this couldn't be split to a stand-alone list (as Cassianto has already suggested). I've left more comments at Talk:Saxophone. Also, Le Saxophone (talk · contribs) should have been included on the list of involved users (I have just added the account to the list, and left a notification for the user). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution attemptI have assessed the problems and reversions HStokar is having. HStokar wants to add more Saxophonic works to a list that is already far too long to be in a prose based article. Saxophilist is regulating that lists length by not expanding on it any more. HStokar keeps adding the information and it is being deleted by Saxophilist for the reasons already given. I am happy this dispute is not personal and there are no OWN issues by either editor. I have suggested to HStokar here that, IMO, the ugly bulleted lists could do with being pulled out of the main article altogether and a new, more detailed article, can be created which focuses on Saxophone works only. This list article can then be as detailed and exhaustive as the creators like but must be backed up with reliable citations obviously. I have pointed the user in the direction of how to create a list article and have warned him of his 3rr and his alledged sock puppetry issues. I believe that these breaches were far from sinister and were merely a desperate attempt to add, what he believed was, very important information, which would benefit the reader. I have posted on Saxophilists talk page and will wait to hear a response from both editors. -- CassiantoTalk 12:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Barefoot#Going barefoot
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct, not content, dispute. Feel free to relist if you wish to discuss particular content issues. If you wish to complain about another editor's conduct, use WP:ANI, or to generally request assistance with editing a page try Editor assistance or, since you're pretty new here, perhaps the Teahouse might even be better. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I started editing this page last night and had left it as it was to resume today. I had altered substantial sections to reflect the large amount of research on this matter and intended to spend today making it more even-handed and fixing the formatting, however an editor by the name of Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot keeps blanket-revering these edits for poorly explained reasons and without any justification I can see. He is also acting in an insulting and derogatory way and seems to think that spelling errors are a capital offence. Please could someone come and help with this as he is being obstructive and rude and reverts everything I write with little to no explanation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried talking to him nicely and compromising but he seems to have some sort of unexplained personal vendetta. How do you think we can help? Just having a third party with a nice calming voice would help. I am fed up with argumentative Wiki users and have no intention of giving him what he wants, which is a flaming row. Opening comments by Wiki.Tango.FoxtrotThis is no longer an issue and this wikilawyering attempt can be closed immediately. I never violated WP:3RR and I am no longer reverting the page with the "nuclear option". I am, however, correcting obvious incorrect information and removing invalid citations with a surgical option. WTF? (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC) Talk:Barefoot#Going barefoot 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.
Does anyone object to me closing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
|
German battleship Bismarck
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Withdrawn by filer. xanchester (t) 17:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview An editor, Wdford, has recently attempted to insert highly biased language into the above article, concerning the competing British and German claims as to what was the proximate cause of its sinking. The issure has been discussed for over 2 weeks now, and Wdford refuses to accept that his proposd changes are unacceptable per WP:NPOV (see for instance here). NPOV requires that we treat both sides with equal weight, as both are supported in numerous reliable sources, which I have provided on the article's talk page. Several other editors have commented in the discussion and none of them support Wdford's proposed changes. It seems that Wdford has something against the British, as exemplefied by this comment, where he insinuated that the British left the majority of Bismarck's crew in the water to intentionally kill them. This type of commentary (without any kind of source to back it up) is unacceptable. This apparent bias is demonstrated in this edit, where he deliberately removed citations to material he did not like, presumably to provide the basis to later remove the lines entirely. I have proposed several compromise options on other areas under dispute, but Wdford has either ignored them or finds them to be unacceptable to him. The article has been protected twice to prevent Wdford from attempting to edit-war his changes into the article, which is of course not an acceptable course of action. Wikipedia requires collaboration, but this is something Wdford does not appear to want to do. Several editors other and I have been working together on this article for many years without any incidents this disruptive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion on the article talk page over the past 2 weeks. How do you think we can help? Help convince Wdford that his proposed edits are contrary to policy and are therefore unacceptable. Opening comments by WdfordThese accusations are baseless and misleading. I hold that the edit-warring has been on the part of Parsecboy, who has reverted reliably-sourced and relevant information. I attempted to insert some extra details, all of it relevant to the article and all of it well supported by reliable sources. I also attempted to correct several cases of bias in the Introduction. Parsecboy has flatly rejected all of these edits, and has invested much effort in defending his POV. Inter alia he attempts to maintain the impression that the differing British and German "claims" as to the cause of the sinking deserve equal weight. I have argued, with sources, that the eye-witness and archaeological evidence both weigh heavily in support of the German version, and that the conflicting British version is based only on supposition. I accept both claims must be mentioned, but maintain that representing these claims as equal constitutes WP:UNDUE. The “compromises” proposed by Parsecboy have largely been “go add that material into a different article”. This is not compromise at all. At [21] I merely stated (on the talk page) an undisputed fact, which is well supported by reliable sources, with no “insinuations” at all. At [22], I fact-tagged the citations because they do not actually support the quotes which are attributed to them. In addition to repeatedly side-stepping my attempts at resolution, Parsecboy has made false accusations, has resorted to uncivil language, and has tried to chase me away from this article - see e.g. [23] and [24] Wdford (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC) German battleship Bismarck 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.
Just to note, Wdford and I are currently working out a solution to the main issues, and this will probably not be necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
|
History of Cambodia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as improper request: Block evasion by sockpuppet of blocked editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have posted some information to said page with statements to the effect that the SAS were training Khmer Rouge fighters. I have provided a quote from an Member of the UK parliament and two former members of the SAS stating that the SAS did train Khmer Rouge fighters.Another editor keeps deleting everything that I posted using various different excuses that I feel do not hold any water. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have opened a talk page but the discussion there is not going anywhere as the other editor I feel is not really discussing what I posted and brining up other things unrelated. I have also been to the reputable sources page to ask if Hansard was a reliable source.Two people have posted to that question not including the other editor,one states that it is reliable source and can be used but only as member of parliament so and so stated that etc, which is how I used it. No room.... How do you think we can help? I would like other editors to have a look at what I posted and to say if they feel that it is badly sourced and should be deleted or if it should be edited.Also if they feel that the other editors excuses for deleting it are worthy.I do not want to get into an edit war with another editor. Opening comments by TheTimesAreAChangingConsensus at RSN is that "Hasnard should only be used to express the exact wording of comments that are mentioned in reliable secondary sources, i.e., rarely." Kabulbuddha is selecting out of context quotes from primary source documents by means of original research, and three other editors have stated that Hasnard should not be used unless it can be established that the quotes have are relevant and treated with due weight. For a broad historical overview, this kind of gossip (that did not hold up in court) does not merit lengthy discussion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC) 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.
History of Cambodia 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 concur with the folks at RSN who said that the parliamentary record is a reliable source for what was said in that body, but only for that (at least in this context). That is, it is reliable for the fact that Mr. X said Y, but is not reliable for proving that Y is true or false. For that reason it is only useful in the article in question if the fact that Mr. X said something is relevant, not for the truth of what he said. Thus on general principles I would not think that the quotes from the parliamentary record would be usable in the article. To say that in a technical way, Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary sources says that primary sources can only be used if the point that they to be used for can be read from the source without even the slightest degree of interpretation, synthesis, or analysis. To use these parliamentary quotes within that restriction would be legitimate if the point to be illustrated was a question or issue over whether Mr. X said Y, but to use it to support an assertion in Wikipedia that Y is historically true requires analysis of what Mr. X meant and his reasons and support for saying it. That analysis violates the primary source policy. That alone is enough to exclude the information from Wikipedia, but let me also note that merely because an assertion comes from a reliable source does not alone require it to be introduced into Wikipedia. The reliable source policy can be a reason to exclude information from Wikipedia, but it alone is not a reason to include it. Finally, it appears to me that the discussion over that dispute has moved on to a discussion of other possible sources for the information which Kabulbuddha wishes to introduce into the article. There has not been sufficient talk page discussion of those sources, however, to discuss them here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so you want to add:
and your sources are listed above in the links you provide. That doesn't look bad, but one issue that jumps right out, as TransporterMan said above, is that writings by people who were involved in an event are not considered great sources. It is 100 times better if you could find an independent source (professor, major newspaper, etc) that quotes Ryan or MacKenzie. Can you find such a "secondary source"? If not, the material probably should be packed down to one sentence. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
|
Gangnam District
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This dispute is mainly based on the sentence "Gangnam has been a stalwart supporter of U.S. forces in Korea for many years", which I sourced from this article published by the US Army User:YvelinesFrance wrote "I don't believe this information is important not to mention the case for neutrality WP:POV" and that "US military is not a reliable source. It is military propaganda" Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the Talk page is leading to nowhere because my arguments are countered with claims and accusations that cannot be sourced How do you think we can help? It would be great if someone could advise on the reliability/neutrality of the US Army's article, and whether it is suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia's Gangnam District article. Opening comments by YvelinesFrancePlease 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.
Gangnam District 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 would ordinarily wait for a response by YvelinesFrance before jumping in, but it appears to me that there is an outcome here which is clearly defined by policy. While YvelinesFrance's reasons for removing the assertion in question may or may not be questionable, the material clearly cannot be included in the article based on the army.mil source identified in the request. That is not because the military is unreliable per se or because of any allegation that it might be propaganda, but because this is a self-published source like a blog, press release, or corporate newsletter and per Wikipedia's self-published source policy a self-published source cannot be used if it involves claims about third parties. This is clearly a claim about a third party, therefore the source is not reliable for this purpose. The material must be excluded unless a third-party reliable source can be found for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
|
RT (TV network)
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Parties did not achieve consensus. One of the two parties has been blocked for a week. After they return, a new DRN case may be initiated if needed, however I'd recommend an RfC instead of a DRN case. Noleander (talk) 15:42, 1 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
Have you tried to resolve this previously? See full discussion at Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Is_Festermunk_willing_to_do_dispute_resolution.3F as well as talk page references above. Since he later asked about Arbitration at my talk page, I decided to bring this here first just to assume good faith. How do you think we can help? I'm coming her rather than going to WP:Edit Warring noticeboard again, but if you think this is all behavioral and more appropriate there, do tell. Advice on whether Assange paragraph belongs in History or the (now deleted) guests section welcome; and how to list guests would be appreciated, but obviously can't discuss it in rational manner with the behavioral disruptions. Opening comments by FestermunkMy opening comments will be a point by point rebuttal to CarolMooreDC's accusation
:Today I put an edit warring notice on his talk page, commenting also on the talk page entry interruptions, and he copied it whole to my talk page.
Festermunk (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC) RT (TV network) discussionHi. I'm a DRN volunteer, and I'd be willing to help out. It looks like both parties have submitted opening comments, so let me do some research and we can get started. Feel free to continue updating your opening comments, or comment here. --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Need specific content-based questions - Okay, I've read the summary of the dispute, and the Talk page. As is explained in the DRN synopsis above, DRN is limited to discussion content disputes, so any issues about behavior are off-limits here. So, let's focus on content issues. Can both parties please provide (here, in the Discussion section) a bulletized list of the key content issues with the article? For example "Should the article contain a list of guests?" or "Is fact ABC supported by reliable sources?" or "Into which section should Assange's program be mentioned?". After we get a list of the specific content issues, then we can go from there. From this point forward, please do not mention the behavior of other editors. Stick to content/sourcing issues only. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Festermunk (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Threaded discussions of 8 issuesIt's good to see that the eight issues are agreed upon. Glancing through them, I don't see any show-stoppers: I'm sure we can find a good resolution for each issue that is consistent with WP policies. I'll post my thoughts on the issues one at a time below. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
That concludes my initial thoughts on how WP policies apply to the issues raised. Perhaps it would be best to post any replies, indented, within the text above, so that we can have threaded discussions from this point forward? When posting replies that involve specific material, it is best to include quotes from sources (preferably secondary sources) that are utilized for the material. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Changes to the RT articleA note to all involved editors, I've started making changes according to the points on which we have an agreement. (1, 4, 5, 6, 7a and 7b, 8) Editors should also note that I've re-added sourced materials that were previously removed. Festermunk (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Festermunk quotes me and responds: "I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise. I have left an appropriate comment on his talk page about his comment. Otherwise we have a list of Noleander quotes which may or may not be her last comment and which I may or may not have responded to in the order he seems to demand. To make it simple my views are: 4) RT Staff: the issue is does it belong under Criticism/controversy or in other sections as relevant, including an organization or staff section, the latter being my clear position. 5) Simonyan: same as above 6) She is not saying that such a paragraph should be in Criticism/controversy nor is she excluding mentioning other info about her in other sections 7a) Marcin is the one where there was a clear agreement so no response necessary 7b) I don't dispute adding the negative info from NY Times, I dispute your removing any positive information from there or other WP:RS. Like this new edit where Festermunk deleted neutral analysis info writing: (the entire paragraph is irrelevant soapboxing) Why are long sections full of negative criticism NOT soap boxing, but a short paragraph of neutral informative material from The New Republic and The Independent is?? This is the kind of POV that made it necessary to come here in the first place, but you don't seem to understand the point at all. CarolMooreDC 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
|
- ^ [32]
- ^ Braund, Susanna. "Prosimetrum" in Cancil, Hubert and Helmuth Schneider, eds. Brill’s New Pauly. Brill Online, 2012
- ^ Dronke, Peter. Verse with Prose from Petronius to Dante. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-674-93475-X p2
- ^ "Why was Misha B knocked out of the X Factor? - Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph. London: TMG. ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
- ^ "'Bullying scandal killed Misha B's X Factor dream' | The Voice Online". voice-online.co.uk. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|year=(help) - ^ "Why was Misha B knocked out of the X Factor? - Telegraph". The Daily Telegraph. London: TMG. ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
- ^ "'Bullying scandal killed Misha B's X Factor dream' | The Voice Online". voice-online.co.uk. 2012 [last update]. Retrieved 22 October 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|year=(help) - ^ "Misha B Claims Bullying Row Damaged Her Chances". MTV. Retrieved 19 October 2012.