Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 132
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Contents
- 1 Talk:Kshama Sawant#Self_published_sources_and_Sawant.27s_positions
- 2 Talk:Karait
- 3 User talk:KH-1
- 4 Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit
- 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=prev&diff=702652628
- 6 Template talk:NE regional map
- 7 Talk:Muhammad
- 8 Talk:African Americans
- 9 Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks and this article
- 10 Talk:American International_Group#Content_dispute
- 11 Talk:ResellerRatings
- 12 Talk:Marc Randazza
- 13 Talk:Naomi Ragen#Changes_to_legal_section
- 14 Zionism
- 15 Planet of the Apes (2001 film)
- 16 Code Black (TV series)
- 17 Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters
- 18 Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by
Talk:Kshama Sawant#Self_published_sources_and_Sawant.27s_positions
![]() | Two out of three users do not wish to use DRN. See closing comment for more detailed response. Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum |
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 Should Sawant's campaign issues section states that she "is also a supporter of expanding public transit and bikeways, ending corporate welfare, ending racial profiling, reducing taxes on small businesses and homeowners, protecting public sector unions from layoffs, living wage union jobs, and social services." citing her campaign page Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage discussion (added by Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum) How do you think we can help? I think suggestions could be made on the best way to describe what the issues of the campaign were. If the general view is that the best way is to quote from the candidate's page itself, then I'll defer and focus more on independent sources but my view is that using the candidate's obviously self-servicing campaign rhetoric on the page is better removed then kept for an example of the issues of *the campaign* (which is not the same as her political positions). Summary of dispute by Dennis BratlandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GraniteSandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Kshama Sawant#Self_published_sources_and_Sawant.27s_positions discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Karait
![]() | Closed as outside scope of DRN. The filing party states that this is a conduct dispute. DRN does not handle conduct disputes. Conduct disputes should be reported to WP:ANI. If there is a content dispute, and if it can be described without conduct allegations, and if there is no conduct dispute pending at WP:ANI, this case can be refiled as a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This is a conduct dispute arising from harrassment on Talk pages. The discussion began on Talk:Karait but soon spread to other talk pages: Talk:Keraites Talk:Turkic_Karaite Talk:Crimean_Karaites Talk:Karaite_Judaism#Russian_Empire_Karaites_.28Qaraylar.29 Talk:Karaylar#Delete_or_Keep? It spread to these pages is because User:Неполканов brought my attention to the issue of potential confusion with Crimean Karaites and various other ambiguous words which could be used to refer to them. However the Harassment has also appeared on User Talk pages: User_Talk:Toddy1 User_Talk:Warshy It began with my reversion of what I thought was vandalism (I apologized later) of an article here [1] I looked at User:Неполканов's edit histories to try and pinpoint exactly why they started to harrass me. I found this here [2] apparently canvassing support for against the author of the article, an IP address from the biggest ISP company in Israel whose only contributions were on that article [3] maybe the Wikimedia Administrative Offices can identify if that IP has ever been used consistently by another user before. It turned out I was not the first person accused of being a sockpuppet for taking an interest tn this at that time foggy topic. The User WBM1058 had also been accused of being a sockpuppet here [4]. Looking through Неполканов's history he only ever seems to start editing wikipedia when Toddy1 needs assistance accusing sockpuppets. Toddy1's canvassed Warshy into this as you can see from that talk. DBachmann said that we may have all been duped by a sockpuppet of another user but it did not stop the harassments which are too many to post here but an initial list was made here [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive304#User:YuHuw_reported_by_User:Toddy1_.28Result:_.29] but they did not stop, and neither did my requests for them to stop. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be warm and welcoming, I have invited friendship, I have tried to reassure the users that I do not have any negative agenda and encourage the users to engage in discussion pages and bring their sources for un-sourced disputed content rather than talk about me as if I am a sockpuppet everywhere. Any content recommendations from the Users which have been made I have tried to include into the articles, I have taken advice etc.. How do you think we can help? The Wikimedia officials can surely see the IP addresses which I am assigned by my IP service provider (a major company in my country). I always edit wikipedia from an IP address provided me by that provider. I believe if I can prove my true identity to one trusted Wikimedia Foundation Official that the Users can then be reassured that I am not the person they think I am and they may then join in discussing the facts about the articles rather than continue their current path of Harassment. Summary of dispute by НеполкановPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Toddy1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WarshyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DbachmannPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Wbm1058Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I was drawn into this when I spotted technical issues. My first related edit was to the unrelated article about Bungarus venomous snakes, where I removed a hatnote because Karait did not redirect there anymore; but it seems that I stepped into topic areas where one needs to tread carefully, to avoid getting bitten by a Bungarus. I understand that there is no one correct way to spell "Karait"; that varies depending on what foreign language the word has been translated or transliterated from. I understand that peoples characterized as being "Karaits" may come from different geographic regions, far separated from each other, and I understand that some "Karaits" identify as members of the Jewish faith, or some variant of that, while others do not consider themselves to be Jewish. I've seen that Wikipedia has multiple articles covering various geographic, ethnic and religious variants of "Karaits", and that editors, some based in Israel and some based in Russia, cannot agree on how to disambiguate these topics. As an American who identifies as neither Russian nor Jewish, I have limited knowledge, and sorry, limited interest in, these topic areas. I believe that YuHuw is a good-faith new editor, and have no basis whatsoever on which to even remotely suspect them of "socking". Wbm1058 (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by 31.154.167.98Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Karait discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:KH-1
![]() | Procedural close. There has not been extended discussion on the user talk page, only very brief discussion. Also, the discussion of the reverting of a link should preferably on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page whether the link should be kept or reverted. If discussion on the article talk page is inconclusive, this case may be refiled as a dispute about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_forensics - an external link has been added to the article. The link is to a notable article on "computer forensic expert's specialisation" which in my view greatly complements the topic. User: KH-1 has removed this link. I left a note and undid the edit. KH-1 appears to be determined to get rid of all external links rubber-stamping all as spam and removed the link again. I am a retired expert in computer forensics and this was my first attempt to contribute to wikipedia. I don't believe user KH-1 has any understanding of computer forensics or desire to read the linked article first. Unfortunately, there is appears to be no other contact details on his/her user page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? tried to leave a comment on editing page and user talk. How do you think we can help? Review KH-1 contributions and comment on them. It appears KH-1 is simple an external links Nazi. Summary of dispute by KH-1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:KH-1 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit
![]() | Either one of two reasons, either of which is sufficient to decline this request. Either, there is no dispute due to the existence of a preexisting consensus which has not yet been adequately challenged to put it back into dispute, or in light of the positions of the parties there is no room here for compromise, which makes further discussion here futile. I see only one path for those who are opposed to the use of the term: a new well-publicized RFC (i.e. it should be listed at the Village Pump and at related Wiki-projects). It may be that the proponents of the term object to a new RFC so soon, and it would be fair if the questions presented at the RFC began with a question about the status of the existing consensus, but I agree that the last on-point consensus was somewhat weak and that the W2W consensus was about article naming which has some different considerations than article content. I'm not saying that a new RFC is or is not too soon, but only that the question is open. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede was reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly "His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects." The phrase has since undergone several changes, and is now somewhat different, however the "vulture" term remains steadfast. I hold the use of "vulture" is not only non-neutral but pejorative and offensive, as treated in RS. Posterior discussions, such as here, here and here, were thoroughly unproductive. I request mediation with the intention of receiving feedback regarding both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, their ramifications with regards to the use of the term, and hopefully an end to this slight content dispute. So far I've been able to fathom a 3v3 !vote regarding the use of said term, which is indeed far from consensus. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've posted messages on both BLPN and NPOVN, but not a single person outside of the disputing editors cared to offer any comments. How do you think we can help? I am hoping you can provide advice and direction with regards to policy on this issue (e.g. neutrality), and finally put us on the right path to improving the current article. I believe we are all willing to compromise and find common ground. We need to get this moving. There will continue to be content disputes every time the article is edited unless we find a way to resolve the article's tone and the use of a specific set of adjectives. Summary of dispute by NomoskedasticityPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SegataSanshiro1The premise of the argument is unfounded. Vulture fund was discussed very heavily at W2W here and the consensus was to follow the sources and go with the commonly used term, that being Vulture fund. Editing a BLP, one has to be careful not to attribute the term to Singer specifically in Wikipedia's voice, but do make sure sources are represented and there are many, many sources which indicate that he has been referred to as a vulture directly and others purely describing his business as a vulture fund. While the need to avoid smearing is necessary, but we're not here to avoid hurting people's feelings. Leaving this out would be akin to whitewashing and it's seriously damaging to Wikipedia's credibility if this page is going to read like a nice PR piece for Singer (as it has in the past). The very simple solution would be to use the term, but use it wisely. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by NickCTI agree with User:Jonathan A Jones, User:SegataSanshiro1 and User:Nomoskedasticity. This conversation has had a lot of input from a lot of people. This looks like a somewhat extraordinary fourth bite at the DR apple by User:FoCuSandLeArN. NickCT (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Jonathan A JonesI agree with Nomoskedasticity and SegataSanshiro1: this topic has gone round an apparently endless cycle of discussions, RFCs, noticeboards, and so on, raising forum shopping to a veritable artform. There's no real dispute here, just an editor not prepared to accept a clear and utterly uncontroversial consensus, which is that in this article we should adopt standard Wikipedia practice and follow what the sources say about the subject. The term "vulture fund" in not intrinsically pejorative, though some sources use it in a pejorative fashion, but even if it were agreed to be so then there would be nothing wrong in noting that "vulture fund" is one of the descriptions widely applied to Singer's activities as long as such descriptions were properly sourced and due weight was applied. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by ComatmebroI've stated from the beginning that I find the term to be non-neutral pejorative as well as offensive. I think if the argument is being made that the term should be used "sparingly", than the argument should be made that the term shouldn't be used at all. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by MeatsgainsConsensus on this issue was claimed to have been met on RfCs and noticeboards however, prior discussions prove that the same involved editors disagree on whether the term should be added to Singer's BLP. I maintain that the term "vulture" is a derogatory pejorative not suitable for Wikipedia, especially a BLP. Comparing somebody or their business practices to a bird that feeds on the death of a sick or injured animal or person violates WP:NPOV. The opposition (those who favor adding the term) argue that there is only one editor who is unwilling to accept use of the term but there are several who disagree with adding it. Clearly we have not reached a definitive consensus since this issue is being addressed yet again. I would like to see feedback from other users (not the same ones pinged here) and for an admin to take a look at this dispute. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's note: Two important points to FoCuSandLeArN:
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer's note: I'm not taking this case, but I do have a question to ask FoCuSandLeArN, Comatmebro, and Meatsgains: There clearly has been a consensus in the past to use the term in this article. Consensus can, of course, change, but for it to change it must be changed. That means that there must be a new consensus discussion, either in the form of just a plain discussion or in the form of a RFC or both, which comes to the new consensus. (Or a long-unreverted edit in contradiction of the prior consensus, but that's not the case here.) If no new consensus is formed — that is, the new discussion ends in either a consensus to retain the existing consensus or in "no consensus" — the existing consensus remains in place. It is, also of course, permissible to start new discussions or continue prior discussions in an effort to change consensus. (That right does not mean, however, that the opponents must participate or continue to participate in those attempts) However, to form a new consensus one must either bring new supporters into the discussion (which presumes that the reasons to support both options are very close in weight so that the number of supporters becomes relevant), convince some of the opponents to change or compromise their position, or most often to advance new arguments or new circumstances which were not considered or not adequately considered in the prior consensus discussions to show that the prior consensus was inappropriate. With that introduction, I'm concerned that there's not really a dispute here for us to moderate. DRN does not take cases where there is already consensus on a dispute. In this case, that means that there must be at least some demonstration, of the type noted above, that the existing consensus should change. What has been offered in the discussions since the last consensus was formed on this matter which should cause that consensus to change? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I believe refusing to take the case before asking questions was "not a good way to get this case started". In his own words:
To make things more simple for the volunteers, I have taken the time to create some tables and a timeline with the number of times the editors here have been involved in these discussions. There's been a lot of claims that not many editors have been involved, that it's always the same editors or that consensus was weak. Let's just let the facts speak for themselves. I apologise for the length of this, but perhaps it will save more time in the long-run. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RfC 1: Should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund? 16 July 2014 - 21 August 2014
RfC 2: Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP? 30 August 2015 - 12 October 2015
W2W: Using "Vulture fund" as a page name 14 October 2015 - 24 November 2015 Note: this is not part of the Paul Singer discussion, but the volunteers have asked what new things have happened since the last RfC, and this seems relevant. If it should not be taken into consideration, then feel free to ignore it.
Totals
Total number of editors involved: 31 Discussions started by FoCuSandLeArN: Copy edit (talk page) - 30 November 2015 New involvement: 0 Paul Singer (businessman) (BLP noticeboard) - 4 December 2015 New involvement: 0 Paul Singer (NPOV noticeboard) - 15 December 2015 New involvement: 2 - support for usage of the term from an IP editor, minor point of clarification from a new editor Talk:Paul Singer_(businessman)#Copy_edit (here) - 23 January 2016 New involvement: 0
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=prev&diff=702652628
![]() | Either this is a malformed request since only the filing user has been listed in the dispute, in which case this may be refiled with the other users involved in the dispute added in the appropriate section; or this is a case of someone venting per the "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" response. There is also no "overview" of the dispute, just a complaint about an article, while the "How do you think we can help?" response is mostly outside of the jurisdiction of DRN until other parties are added. Closing per the reasons listed. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 22:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
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 Your people are scrubbing clean the Alex Jones (radio host) page. There is much factual detail you omit in order to give him an untarnished reputation. His divorce, the Amanda Bruce affair. Your listing looks like an advert for his company. Under "Controversies", there are none, just accounts of his TV appearance. That does not fit the definition of controversy. When I put one in it was deleted without explaining. In short, wiki plays favorites, thus it is corrupt and not a repository of facts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I think doing a blog exposing wiki for what it is really would be an idea. How do you think we can help? Start by allowing facts to be presented without bias. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alex Jones_(radio_host)&oldid=prev&diff=702652628 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Template talk:NE regional map
![]() | See closing statement by Drcrazy102 at end of collapsed material for reasons. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Whoop whoop pull up insists that TF Green Airport station should be listed on Template:NE regional map. Reverts have been going back and forth. Amtrak does not (and currently can not) serve that station. In order for there to be Amtrak service at the station, there needs to be significant construction done at the station, as no platform services a rail that is electrified - a requirement for Amtrak service. I don't believe this is disputed by anyone. There is no anticipated opening date for Amtrak service to TF Green. The construction has not been commenced; the construction has not even been funded. I concede that there are news articles that discuss the station. Amtrak's Master Plan lists such a station as merely a "long range plan.... under consideration" (page 6 of the most recent Master Plan, 2010). It should be noted that the Amtrak Master Plan is so speculative in nature that it lists an entirely new NextGen HSR NE corridor (to be completed by 2040) as a proposal in a 2012 addendum. In no way should the Master Plan be construed as a definitive forecast, particularly for purposes of a route map of an existing railroad line. There is no satisfactory source that shows with any certainty TF Green Airport will be served by Amtrak, therefore the station should not be listed on the route map. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I began the conversation on the template's talk page. How do you think we can help? Establish criteria for when a station should be added to the template for a United States railway, and provide a ruling in this case. Summary of dispute by Whoop whoop pull upPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template talk:NE regional map discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Muhammad
![]() | There are too many problems with this case to make it a reasonable candidate for DRN. First, there is an RFC on the same subject that has expired but not been closed, and that is sufficient reason to close this case. If the RFC is closed as No Consensus, and there are no other problems (but there are), it can be refiled here. Second, the two editors named by the filing party were properly notified by the filing party, but have not responded in 36 hours. This implies that they may not be interested in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Third, this case is now also pending at the edit-warring noticeboard, and the guidelines at DRN say that a case is not accepted if it is pending in another forum. What next? The RFC needs to be closed, and the edit-warring report needs to be acted on. If the RFC results in consensus, that is that. If the RFC results in No Consensus, and the edit-warring is disposed of (e.g., any blocked editors come off block), due to the long history of this issue, I recommend formal mediation rather than informal dispute resolution (but, like DRN, it is voluntary). Also, the editors are reminded that conduct issues may result in draconian action via arbitration enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#Aisha_.22reaching_age_of_puberty.22 Users involved
Dispute overview In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Household there is a very specific sentence which reads "Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad,with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old". The dispute is that NONE of these "traditional sources", specifically the Hadith/Sunnah which contains the life of Muhammad as narrated by his contemporaries says Aisha ever reached puberty. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted mediation previously, but was told 2 months ago that the discussion on the Talk page was not extensive enough (although that is very subjective). 2 months later and there is still no resolution/consensus. How do you think we can help? As this has to do with the topic of religion, it would be best if there were unbiased arbiters who could make a clear decision based on the facts. Summary of dispute by EperotonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JeppizPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Muhammad discussionI would like to be party in dispute as I was one of the editors involved in the original dispute FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trinacrialucente (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you look through the entire dialogue, the problem is not anti-Muslim bias...it is the opposite. So, I hardly think having a Muslim editor close the RFC is objective or contructive, since that "bloc" are the ones creating the stalemate/preventing any edits. Let's drop the "PC" over-sensitivities and function like an academic encyclopedia. Any qualification of the religion of an editor to settle such a dispute is in itself a form of prejudice. I personally don't care what the religion (if any) the participating editor is, so long as the editor has not shown bias to the topic. Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
Talk:African Americans
![]() | There are both a closed RFC with consensus for the removal of galleries of images of ethnic groups and an open RFC concerning the removal of galleries of images. The open one should probably be closed as already decided. However, either a closed RFC or an open RFC is sufficient for declining this case. The closed RFC is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups #Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The open RFC is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images #"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". The filing party points out that some ethnic groups do have galleries of images. That is because they haven't been removed yet. In any case, this case is not accepted here. If the filing party continues to add images against consensus, other editors may report this at WP:ANI or WP:ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Thomas.W In any case, other ethnic groups have images of notable personalities in the infobox e.g.Nubians, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Italians I strongly feel that this is discriminatory practice. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss the issue on the aforementioned talk pages, to no avail. How do you think we can help? I would like some clarity on whether putting images of notable African Americans on the infobox of that page is proper vide Wikipedia policy. Summary of dispute by User:Thomas.WPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:X4n6Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by User:Flyer22 RebornPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
No dispute for me. I was involved in a Mariah Carey image dispute. Like I just stated on my talk page: "The current big dispute regarding this [the bigger issue] is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". A WP:Permalink for it is here." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by User:Bishonen
Summary of dispute by User:RexxSThe issue of image galleries in infoboxes has been previously discussed extensively. On 30 November 2015 an RfC was opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups under the title "Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups". It was listed at the following RfC sections: Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Society, sports, and culture; Language and linguistics; History and geography; and was advertised at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. The question was clarified to be "Should montages of notable people be removed from ethnic group article infoboxes?". After 35 days, on 3 January 2016 the RfC was closed by User:Sandstein with the following rationale The content issue is clear: User:Thomas.W was following community consensus in removing image galleries from African Americans and User: DanJazzy is guilty of disruptive editing in his attempts to override the broad community consensus There is also the conduct issues of wasting everybody's time by filling here. As if that were not enough, I note that he inserted a 6 x 6 gallery, when even the previous guidance limited the number of images to 20 (4 x 5). This is because a gallery of more than 4 images wide make the infobox expand considerably wider than its default, and there really has never been any justification or precedent for doing that. --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:African Americans discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany#Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks and this article
![]() | General close. Although four editors made opening statements, only two have responded to my questions, and they don't seem to object to the concept of an RFC. A Request for Comments will be used to determine whether to include the See Also link. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Is it acceptable to include a contentious SEE ALSO link without any sourcing basis, on the theory that Verifiability and I suppose also No Original Research are inapplicable to SEE ALSO links? It is claimed that since the policy on SEE ALSO links allows that they may include "tangentially related" topics, there is no requirement to use a source to demonstrate, if necessary, that the tangential relationship actually exists or is substantial or noteworthy. Unsourced links may not be objectionable in some circumstances, but in this case the unsourced connection attempts to compare two sets of sexual assault incidents involving numerous living people, without any sourcing or other independent basis for the comparison. User:Veggies wishes to compare these attacks to some attacks that apparently occurred at the NYC Puerto Rican Day Parade in 2000. * * * * No published analysis, commentary, opinion, news reporting or other material has compared these two incidents. Neither article contains any material that references the other. There are many obvious differences between the incidents. No reason is suggested why the comparison is especially apt, other than that Veggies thinks they are similar. If the comparison were put into a sentence ("These German sex assaults are similar to previous attacks that occurred at New York's Puerto Rican Day Parade in 2000."), it would be an unsourced contentious claim and hence OR subject to removal. Moreover, the Verifiability policy explicitly states that it is applicable to all parts of an article, right in the second paragraph of arguably the most painstakingly manicured piece of lawful verbiage on the Wiki. "All material . . . including everything in articles . . . must be verifiable." We have to assume that those words are carefully chosen and are meant literally, right? The practice may be tolerable for non-contentious connections, but not otherwise IMO. Please advise. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk at the NOR noticeboard but can't get past the policy question of whether sourcing is required, and that question decides the dispute entirely. Veggies insists on the unsourced link, IP user objects to it, and noticeboard user not involved in the article dispute agrees that sourcing isn't needed. How do you think we can help? Tell us whether it is acceptable to put a contentious unsourceable SEE ALSO link in an article, based solely on an editor's own analysis of the topic(s). Summary of dispute by Veggies
I'll copy what I wrote at WP:NORN: Discussions on the article's talk page have become intractable and outside help is needed. The New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany were a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (New Years) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery. The Puerto Rican Day Parade attacks were, likewise, a series of mass sex assaults carried out by groups of men in public during a celebratory period (Puerto Rican Day) upon strangers. The attacks involved mass groups of men separating and assaulting women as well as robbery. Seeing the similarities between the two (both of which have been extensively cited in their respective articles using verifiable, reliable sources), I decided to place a link in the "See Also" section of the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany article. I did this in accordance with the guidelines at WP:SEEALSO since I figured that readers who'd read the article might be interested in knowing about this very similar incident which had occurred years before in the US. Apparently, User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain disagrees and has been trying to argue that there must be a verifiable citation in a reliable source which "links" the two before a "See Also" link can be added to an article. Asked where this policy can be found, he linked me to WP:V. Simple version: Do comparable "See Also" links need "citations" from a verifiable source that links the two before editors can add them as links in "See Also" sections? I do not believe they do. Summary of dispute by 81.88.116.27Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Despite the similarities between the incidents (sexual assault, festivities, groups), putting unsourced analogies into SEEALSO is a clear invitation to OR and POV-pushing. SEEASLO is there mainly to provide information directly/causally relevant to the main subject of the article - not to draw attention to supposed "similarities", especially if such "similarities" have NOT been extensively explored and overwhelmingly accepted as valid in RS's. If we go down this route - we'll end up with dozens of "similar" see also's - many of which will be inserted primarily for POV reasons. When you potentially have a large GROUP of "similar" incidents, the solution is to name the GROUP and make it into a CATEGORY. I believe this will also be a good mid-way solution here. Gucci81.88.116.27 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by UnequivocalAmbivalencePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dispute involves whether or not it is a requirement of See Also links that the link be established by a source. Given that the wording of the policy allows for tangential links, I do not believe this to be the case. Given the considerable similarities between these specific events, I think the link is warranted. I do not feel that it is contentious, and I don't feel that it pushes any sort of non-neutral POV as neither event has a BLP type reputation that could be sullied by its linkage to another similar event. In fact, I'm not even sure what the claims of POV pushing refer to, as far as I can tell the people who say linking these events violates POV have not explained how it does so, or what POV is supposedly being pushed by their linking.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk:New Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany#.22Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade_attacks.22_and_this_article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. Are there any other issues besides a controversial SEEALSO wikilink? All editors are reminded to be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Every editor should check on this page at least every 48 hours and should answer all questions from the moderator, who will check at least every 24 hours. Threaded discussion is not permitted. Address the moderator, or everyone (it doesn't matter). Do not respond to specific posts by other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. It is preferred that you not discuss at the talk page, because this is the place for central discussion and talk page comments may be ignored. Are there any issues other than the SEEALSO? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editorsIn response to the question asked by the moderator, as far as I know there were no other aspects to this particular dispute, although I was not involved until late in the discussion so other editors could speak more accurately to that. The only issue I am aware of is the dispute over the inclusion of the See Also link. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by moderatorIf the only issue is the SEEALSO link, please explain why the SEEALSO link is appropriate, or why it is not appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editorsThe See Also link is appropriate because both events have a number of significant similarities, specifically that both are events in which large numbers of women reported being isolated and assaulted by groups of men during public celebrations/festivities. I do not think that it is necessary for a reliable source to make this comparison; indeed if a reliable source were to make such a comparison it would probably not be included in the See Also section but rather incorporated into the body of the article in the way of the Tahrir Square attacks. Also it would seem that there is precedent in See Also sections for linking events such as these on the basis of commonalities such as circumstance and victims, given that the policy page[8] gives, as an example of a Featured Article with a good See Also section, the 1740 Batavia massacre which lists the "May 1998 riots of Indonesia – riots in which many ethnic Chinese were targeted for violence" in its See Also section. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderatorSince the only issue in this case is the See Also, I have to ask a three-part question. I don't see a compromise. Either the link is kept or the link is deleted. First, are the editors who want the link willing to keep the link willing to agree, in order to keep the peace, to omit it? Second, are the editors who want the link deleted willing to keep the link in order to keep the peace? Third, are the editors willing to agree to an RFC on whether to keep the link? I think that the RFC is the best way forward, but I am asking all three parts. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors
Yes, I can see the link omitted to keep the peace—yes, and I will agree to an RFC to arbitrate this (and to abide by its decision). -- Veggies (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by moderatorAn editor wrote (and I moved their statement): "Personally I prefer this forum because we're talking about a subtle interpretation of core policy and I think a veteran admin is a better source of guidance." I have two comments. First, most of the moderators here are not admins, only experienced editors. Second, my understanding of how DRN works is that, when two or more editors have significantly different views, and when neither opinion is clearly wrong as in contrary to policy (which, as noted, is subtle), it isn't the job of the moderator to take a side, but to help the participants work things out. So, again, there are three possibilities: keep the link to keep peace; remove the link to keep peace; hold an RFC. If another editor has a different opinion, or a volunteer thinks that I have misinterpreted my role, please comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editorsMy mistake regarding procedures and mods at DRN. Also just want to mention, Gucci suggested a further alternative above that it makes more sense to put the relevant incidents into a category containing both articles, instead of an explicit textual link from one article to the other. I'm inclined to agree that this would be the best middle ground if it is practical to accomplish, and if the category is appropriately named (e.g. not "mass sex assaults with a racial and/or ethnic component") and populated (e.g. it shouldn't wind up containing only the two articles we're talking about). Other than that I acknowledge the other stated outcomes or RFC as the next step. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
Talk:American International_Group#Content_dispute
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Rjensen added content that I initially thought was vandalism, due to its being included twice, as well as formatted strangely. I re-evaluated that opinion after being prompted by another user, and now dispute that the content should remain in both sections of the article, in the way that it currently reads. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I offered to collaborate on cleaning up the copy. How do you think we can help? Rjensen has refused to work with me. I am still open to collaborating to find a mutually agreeable solution. Summary of dispute by RjensenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:American International_Group#Content_dispute discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:ResellerRatings
![]() | General close due to no response by parties within two days after being asked by moderator to comment on scope. If there continues to be disagreement, a Request for Comments may be appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I am attempting to include well sourced data for a "Company Rating" and "Criticism" section of the ResellerRatings article. The data was originally provided by 71.235.154.73 who was involved in an edit war with Techimo over a year ago. 71.235.154.73 reappeared recently and added better sourced, more neutral data, which Techimo and 166.170.37.25 reverted, citing non-NPOV. His reversions were then reverted by another impartial editor, citing that the original statements were well sourced. 166.170.37.25 then sent a message to that user, and his reverts were undone. Techimo then requested article protection by user CambridgeBayWeather who obliged, I believe, without actually reading the content. The changes have been discussed ad nauseum on Talk:ResellerRatings and consensus cannot be reached. In summary, I believe a "Criticism" or similarly themed section is appropriate for this article. Historically, Techimo has removed anything which he considers unflattering about this company. He also started the article on the company's founder, Scott Wainner. This points to a COI, in my opinion. Regardless, peer entities such as Angie's List, Better Business Bureau, and Trustpilot all have "Criticism" sections. There are valid, reliably sourced criticism of ResellerRatings which are appropriate for inclusion, to make the article well rounded and less like company PR. The data to be included describes the criticisms of the company and the actions the company took to address them. I believe that's fair. Citing positive reviews of the company's performance by ResellerRatings' customers for a "Criticism" section would be inappropriate. Those would be better suited for a section with a different title. If Techimo wants to create such a section, that would be his responsibility to do so. I believe the article already sufficiently describes the pro aspects of the business. Con aspects should be included to make the article more accurate and well rounded. A simple Google search reveals that there is quite a bit of criticism of this company, and the data provided reports on some of those aspects, from a reliable source. This is all well documented on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've discussed this with Techimo on the talk page. I've discussed this with CambridgeBayWeather on his talk page, when I requested unprotection. The latter opted to bow out of the request, referring me to take my request up on the article's talk page. How do you think we can help? An impartial party can settle the dispute as to whether the data is suitable for inclusion. Summary of dispute by TechimoZeroShadows is defending content contributed to the ResellerRatings page by 71.235.154.73, an edit warring IP who posted the same (or versions of) critical attacks (citing user generated, not reliable sources) no less than 103 times in December 2014. This user then began another tirade of posts under the the username NotTechimo, for which he was blocked from Wikipedia for impersonating (me) by Mr._Stradivarius. The edit war continued from 32.211.179.232, so the ResellerRatings page was protected for 6 months until August 2015 by CambridgeBayWeather. Within hours of the Jan 21, 2016 edits by 71.235.154.73, ZeroShadows contributed several edits to the ResellerRatings and Better Business Bureau pages. ZeroShadows proposed "Company Rating" section sources are all user generated opinions and are not reliable sources per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ZeroShadows' proposed section entitled "Criticism" has numerous issues:
Ultimately, companies routinely increase rates, and in the case of ResellerRatings, a b2b platform where consumers pay nothing and merchants optionally pay to participate, raising rates over time should be considered in the same light as any other businesses that adjust rates over time. For instance, there are dozens of articles about Netflix (b2c) raising rates for millions of people (consumers, in that instance) with a resultant stock price decline for a time, and none of that is even mentioned in the Wikipedia article save for a sentence or two such as "The price increase took effect immediately for new subscribers, but will be delayed for two years for existing members". Many customers "fumed" about the Netflix rate increase in 2011, but it was as irrelevant to Netflix's overall story as it is to ResellerRatings' overall 15 year history. [1] Applying the Netflix logic here, one sentence presented in a disinterested tone in the history section, such as "ResellerRatings raised prices for some merchants in 2013" with a citation pointing to the Internet Retailer article might be the extent of what's appropriate, but I still disagree that it's relevant or useful info for anyone to add that. Techimo (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
Talk:Marc Randazza
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Some edits going back and forth on one particular section of a BLP "Career" section. I genuinely feel my edits are worth inclusion in the article and properly cited, but I also am very cognizant of the sensitivities involved (and scrutiny warranted) when it comes to BLPs. Again, I do feel the particular section that was recently removed should be included in the article, but since I've been accused of being an SPA I'm wary of undoing an edit that removed it and also don't wish to start an edit war. I suppose I should point out, objectively, some of the users that have undone my edits show contribution histories completely focused around this one article or were done by people that work for the LP (mind you, I don't necessarily feel that invalidates their edits in and of itself, but it just weirds me out a bit given the SPA accusations being thrown at me). Nonetheless, the section referenced an Ars Technica article about the LP. Since then, it's been removed a few times (and then modified and/or put back in by myself or other editors), then removed again, heavily modified, unmodified, etc. Most recently, a user removed the section entirely, citing (in their edit comment) a blog post I'm not entirely convinced is something such a significant content edit should be based on. I undid their deletion, but that was undone in turn shortly thereafter. It was at that point I figured I'd post here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've attempted to seek some clarification on things in the Talk section, and tried to have a discussion there. Ended up just resulting in more SPA accusations, though. Some edits (by myself and others) were done to make things more objective, which was great. They seemed to stick for awhile, before someone just came along and deleted everything. How do you think we can help? Perhaps a review of the edit history, by editors far more wise, capable, and experienced than myself would help. Given the SPA accusations going back and forth, maybe an established editor - with a broader range of contributions - could review? I don't pretend to believe my edits are flawless so am not even asking for back up on that. Just feel everyone would benefit from review by someone at whom an SPA accusation could likely not be reasonably directed. Thanks!007news (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by XoddaMottoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 172.56.16.206Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Marc Randazza discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Naomi Ragen#Changes_to_legal_section
![]() | General close without prejudice. Filing editor has not notified other editor of case three days after being asked to do so. The filing editor may refile this case if they give proper notice to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Talk:Naomi Ragen#changes to legal section A dispute how to best prune the legal issue in the article about Naomi Ragen. Dispute includes 1. Whether this should be mentioned in the lead at all. 2. How much details should be removed from the Naomi_Ragen#Lawsuits section. There is no dispute that some details can be removed from that section. Important background information: 1. This article was recently extensive edited by an involved party, User:Sarah Shapiro, who was consequently blocked. The dispute might include the question whether as a result of those edits the article is still neutral or not, although I am not clear whether there is a dispute on this account. 2. User:50.182.180.55 is the same as User:TeeVeeed, just when he has problems logging in. 3. The issue is all the more important in view of fact that this article is a WP:BLP. Have you tried to resolve this previously? WP:3O was declined because "there are more than two editors discussing the issues here", although really there are only two. How do you think we can help? Give advice what part of the Naomi_Ragen#Lawsuits section should and should not be pruned. We would prefer the comments to be posted on the talkpage. Summary of dispute by TeeVeeedThis is a messy unbalanced and WP:UNDUEBLP article as evidenced by byte-count of the article size compared to the now proposed "legal"-section. I would like to see the legal issues cut completely except for the briefest of NPOV mentions. Making the problem worse is that some of the current legal content was edited-in in good faith by a WP:COI party to the legal suits who was trying to help clarify the issues I guess. That editor seems to understand now that they should please ask for edits to that page on the TP. There is a history of contentious editing of the legal cases. There does appear to be interest in the particulars of this interesting Israeli legal case, but I contend that maybe another article is the place for that information.It has escalated when I boldly cut most of the legal case info out and I agree we need some help here please.DB would like to run the DRN on the article TP and if that is allowed I have no problem with that as I think it is getting to archive-status anyhow.50.182.180.55 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Naomi Ragen#Changes_to_legal_section discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Zionism
![]() | Failed for the following reasons. First, it appears that when this case was filed, not all of the involved editors were notified or participated. Second, some of the editors and the moderator disagreed about various aspects of the case. Third, there is now threaded discussion between editors, which is not permitted. Fourth, it appears that there is no agreement and not likely to be any. The parties are advised to use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Some users are opposing the addition of a tiny sentence in the lead using "UNDUE" as excuse. Discussion on talk page lead to formulation of the sentence "Other territories were considered and rejected". A part of Zionism once strove towards the establishment of a Jewish state out of Palestine, an undeniable fact that is discussed in the article and so it deserves to be mentioned in the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. " 6 words are too much to be in lead for a discussion that lasted for about half a century?!? From 1880s to 1940s? The content is sourced to reliable and published sources and is covered in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on talk page How do you think we can help? Check validity of "undue" claims Summary of dispute by OncenawhilePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WarKosignPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
All the major sources define Zionism as the movement for re-establishment of a national homeland for the Jews in historical Land of Israel, a.k.a. Palestine (region). Makeandtoss has been trying for some time to change the article's definition to say that the movement was not necessarily focused on Zion. While it's true that other locations were proposed, considered and quickly dismissed, they were never the focus for mainstream Zionism. As a compromise I proposed to add a short sentence such as "Other territories were considered and rejected" to the lead (proportional in size to prevalence of the subject in the article body and sources), but picking any location within the lead implied a specific point in time while in reality there was none, and quickly the sentence was modified into misleading and contradicting sources (saying that Israel became the focus of Zionism only after other locations where rejected). I would rather not have this sentence at all since it's too short to be meaningful and the subject is too minor to describe in more detail in the lead. “WarKosign” 07:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by No More Mr Nice GuyPutting this in the lead would be UNDUE. At least 5 editors agreed with this while only 2 disagreed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Zionism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are some ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify. Every editor is expected to check on this case at least every 48 hours and to respond in that time to any questions. Do not edit the article (except for minor edits) during moderated discussion. Do not discuss the article on the article talk page, which is the usual place to discuss the article, but not during moderated discussion, because discussions on the article talk page may be ignored. Comment on content, not contributors. Comments on contributors or uncivil comments may be hatted. Do not engage in threaded discussion; that is, do not reply to the statements by other editors; address your comments to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Will each editor state, civilly and concisely, in no more than three sentences, what they think the issue is, what should or should not be done, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors
Second statement by moderatorWhat is meant by 'I will be more than happy to abandon "after", if this resolves the conflict.'? Please clarify. Does this mean that there is a resolution? Please clarify. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editorsWe had initially agreed upon "Other territories were considered and rejected", I changed it to "After other territories were considered and rejected". I am willing to abandon the word "after" if this resolves the conflict, as WarKosign is claiming. --Makeandtoss (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I prefer not to have the statement, but don't mind too much. A few other editors objected more strongly, No More Mr Nice Guy is their representative in this discussion, but he seems not to be active in the last several days. “WarKosign” 18:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderatorIf there is agreement to keep "Other territories were considered and rejected" by the participating editors, we may close this thread. Is there agreement? Third statements by editorsAs WarKosign mentioned, there is an opposing user who hasnt participated here.. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] I do not object since I proposed this text myself. I know that there are editors objecting. “WarKosign” 14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by moderatorNon-participating editors cannot be considered to be objecting. I will be closing this thread as having reached consensus. If an editor who hasn't participated in this discussion objects, the next step for them is Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editorsI object to putting this in the lead, as do several other editors, some of which nobody suspects of being Zionists such as Zero and Pluto, but who were not invited here for some reason. It's ridiculous to let two editors here override at least 7 on the talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
Planet of the Apes (2001 film)
![]() | Futile. Responding party has expressed a desire to continue discussion at the article talk page rather than engage in dispute resolution at this point. No one is required to participate in moderated content dispute resolution if they do not care to do so. If you reach an impasse, this may be refiled here or some other form of dispute resolution may be used. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Editor trying to prepend "appears to be" in front of "Lincoln Memorial" since the person memorialized within the memorial is not Lincoln, but an ape general, calling into question the in-universe connections between human history and ape history. "Appears to be" doesn't change the truth value of the sentence since the Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. This seems a logical compromise since the truth value of the sentence does not change, but it properly calls into question the absolute parallel between our Earth and the movie universe Earth. If it's the Lincoln Memorial, fine--"appears to be" doesn't change that at all. One editor has also wholesale reverted the change of a word "now" for "actually," which, once again, doesn't change the truth value of the sentence, but merely states that the statue is "actually" Thade and not "actually" Lincoln. "Now" implies that the statue was, at one time, Lincoln, and was changed--even up to the moment we view the film. While this may be true, it's impossible do deduce if the statue was ever Lincoln from the film, itself. "Actually," in this case, is directly accurate. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Lengthy conversation on talk page. (Note: I realized that WP:RFC may be the better option and I'm happy to withdraw this and move it to that venue) How do you think we can help? Determine whether the addition of "appears to be" (and perhaps the change from "now" to "actually") is detrimental to the edit and if not, allowing the change. Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhillThe editor, who has never contributed to the page in question, parachuted in and began to make substantial changes to the meaning of a long standing passage based solely on his own personal opinion and interpretation without any source in support. His edits were reverted and the editor was asked to discuss on article's Talk page before making any further changes. However, instead of waiting for a consensus of editors on Talk page, the editor in question again changed the wording of the article to his version. The editor in question has yet to show any sources that support his opinion nor has gotten a consensus of editors to agree with the changes. Despite this the editor in question is still making changes to the article based on his opinion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Planet of the Apes (2001 film) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Code Black (TV series)
![]() | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. The filing party has made only one talk page edit, which cannot be considered to be extensive. If other editors will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. If extensive discussion does not resolve the matter, feel free to refile here or pursue other dispute resolution, but if you do, please be sure to include all parties taking part in the talk page discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In the latest two episodes of Code Black (TV series), three characters have gained new roles (roles which will be kept until *at least* the end of the current season, according to press releases available at futoncritic). User:Drmargi believes that by referencing these new roles in the character descriptions, WP:TV standards are being breached. She believes only the original roles of a character should be mentioned, despite an evolving narrative, and indeed, narrative purpose. The differences, of course, are minor, but in order to maintain an accurate encyclopedia, they are necessary. Drmargi is insistent on reverting. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started a discussion on the talk page, but Drmargi overwrote this by starting a competing discussion, of the same title, directly beneath it. Clearly this is petulant behaviour. She also believes that her opinion is the "status quo" and therefore should be maintained, despite being against Wiki conventions. I stated I would not concede on this issue, which Drmargi believes was a "threat to edit war", despite her breaching 3RR first. Clearly, this is un-resolvable. Drmargi has since resorted to personal attacks and bullying on another user's talk-page [9]. I no longer feel comfortable editing in this hostile environment. How do you think we can help? I would like an official decision stating that the current roles of characters in TV series are of as much encyclopedic purpose as previous roles. Summary of dispute by DrmargiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Code Black (TV series) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters
![]() | Closed as futile. Neither of the two registered editors, both of whom were notified, and both of whom have been editing, has made a statement after nearly a week. Participation is voluntary, and perhaps they have chosen not to participate. I suggest that the filing party go back to the talk page and try to engage them. If discussion fails or is inconclusive, a Request for Comments is the most reasonable next dispute resolution step. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase? One of the sources in question is pay-walled(WSJ), so an editor with Wall Street Journal access is preferred. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion, Requesting Citations, Posting to WP:3 How do you think we can help? By my reading, the sources don't seem to say what RGloucester says they do. But I'm not certain how he is arriving at his interpretation since, he won't quote the text that he thinks supports his position, so I'm not sure what to do.
Summary of dispute by Iryna_HarpyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RGloucesterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 128.97.68.15Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is a reference to a broken agreement in the article overview. My question is this do the cited sources say there was an agreement? Who said there was an agreement? Was the agreement violated? What is best way to neutrally phrase?
By my reading, there are two sources. Kyiv Post and Wall Street Journal. Kyiv Post says "Russian President Vladimir Putin called for a “humanitarian corridor for besieged Ukrainian soldiers in order to avoid senseless victims,” the Kremlin said. " but it doesn't say an agreement was reached or that it was violated. At best it sort of speculates that there might have been a miscommunication or that no agreement was reached: " But either the Russian troops disobeyed their leader, were never ordered to open such a corridor in the first place, and Ukrainians who tried to use the corridor, were destroyed." Wall Street Journal doesn't assert that there was an agreement. It quotes Beryoza claiming there was an agreement but doesn't explain the terms. Neither WSJ or Kyiv post says the agreement was violated. My preference for resolution is: A) Attribute the claim to Beryoza B) Present both interpretations of the terms.(were arms allowed? were arms brought?) C) Remove the reference to violated agreement and just stick to the reported facts. A&C seem like the better options to me as B is probably messy.128.97.68.15 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Battle of_Ilovaisk#This_agreement_was_not_honored-correct.2C_but_it_was_no_honored_by_Kiev.27s_forces_not_by_resistance_fighters discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by
![]() | Participants have agreed to a compromise. They've agreed to use, Survived by his daughter, three grandchildren and a great-grandson, Vigoda died in his sleep on January 26, 2016, at his daughter Carol Fuchs's home in Woodland Park, New Jersey. Thank you for for your cooperation, patience and civility. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 04:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
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 This meaning of "Survived by" is in dispute. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Requested page protection but, that won't resolve the issue How do you think we can help? More opinions Summary of dispute by American In BrazilPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WP:MOS - "Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense. When making the change upon the death of a subject, the entire article should be reviewed for consistency. If a person is living but has retired, use "is a former" or "is a retired" rather than the past tense "was". Correct – John Smith (1946–2003) was a baseball pitcher ... Correct – John Smith (born 1946) is a former baseball pitcher ... Incorrect – John Smith (born 1946) was a baseball pitcher ... Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.) [emphasis added] American In Brazil (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Talk:Abe Vigoda#survived_by discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Notified Mlpearc (open channel) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay's opinion did not resolve the matter, other than to say: "There's nothing there." In fact, MOS clearly states that historical events should be in the past tense in all biographies of deceased persons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense American In Brazil (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] MOS-in-question, isn't clear on this situation. Requested clarification there. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] Actually, it is. WP:MOS - Historical events in biographies of deceased persons should be in the past tense. Is there anyone out there who disputes Abe's passing? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is disputing it, then his death is now historical and the principle of WP:MOS applies: Historical events of deceased persons should be in the past tense. American In Brazil (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mlpearc has indicated he has no objection, I'm continuing with this case. The dispute words are is survived by and was survived by. Both the words here imply that the someone is dead and that someone's relative is alive (immediately) after their death. But the difference in using those is here. If you're going to use is survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so are alive, even now. For example, Foe is survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead but his wife and two daughters are still alive). If you're going to use was survived by, implies that the person is dead and their so and so were alive, but not now. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters (meaning, Foe is dead and his wife and two daughters 'were' alive). The use of was can be justified if even at least one of their so and so is not alive. For example, Foe was survived by his wife and two daughters could be used if either of his daughters or his wife is dead. Per this source (cited in the article and uses is survived by) Abe Vigoda's daughter, grandchildren and a great-grandson are still living. And this source which explains the use of is survived by. Did that solve the issue? (pinging participants American In Brazil and Mlpearc) Regards—UY Scuti Talk 06:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References
@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti. Thanks to you both for your thoughtful comments. I am familiar with the Associated Press obituary you reference, since I am the one who cited it in the article. As stated above, the present tense 'is survived by' is acceptable in obituaries, which are written immediately after the death of a subject. But in referring on an historical basis to the death of a person, such as a WP article of someone who is deceased, the correct usage is the past tense 'was survived by'. The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with this usage, which is the same for British and U.S. English: (definition 1.2 of the verb 'survive' - to remain alive after the death of a particular person: 'he was survived by his wife and six children'): http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/survive?q=survived This reference is the definitive answer to your question. As a general rule, it is best to follow WP:MOS, which is unambiguous on this point: Biographies of living persons should generally be written in the present tense, and biographies of deceased persons in the past tense...Historical events should be written in the past tense in all biographies(.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Tense American In Brazil (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc & @UY Scuti - If we are now in agreement, and without further objection, in 24 hours I will change 'is' to 'was' in the Abe Vigoda article. I trust this meets with your approval. This seems like such a small point, especially in view of the major controversies swirling around the current U.S. presidential candidates and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (see 'Zionism' immediately below), but I think there is an important lesson to be learned here. If we as editors are helping to create an encyclopedia for the world, accessible by anyone anywhere, we must apply consistency, as well as objectivity, in the treatment of the subjects we cover. The best way to do this is a manual of style. Fortunately, the creators of WP recognized this and have given us WP:MOS. If we follow it, we will have a superior product, one that fairly and accurately summarizes the world's knowledge. I thank you both for your intelligent comments and cordial conversation. -American In Brazil (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlpearc:, @UY Scuti: I thought by your comment that we had concensus. I am disappointed you do not accept the authority of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is considered by scholars to be the final arbiter of definitions and usage in the English language. In addition, you apparently do not accept the principles of WP:MOS which should be the standard usage of all WP editors. If you wish to take it to another level, that is your prerogative. I will not make any change to this verb for 30 days, which will give you ample time to make your case. As for indentation, I start on the left and write to the right. Why is that difficult to follow? -American In Brazil (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|