Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 45
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
United States presidential election, 2008
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Too early for DRN. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I attempted to edit the 2008 Presidential Election page, to include a trend regarding the fact that the republican nominee has not won at least 300 electoral votes for the past five consecutive elections, since 1992. I think it is an interesting, relevant point, and should be included in the analysis section of the page. But, others disagree, saying it is merely trivia. However, there are several trivia points located in the analysis section of the 2004 Presidential election page. I think there should be some consistency between pages. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is my first step in attempting to resolve this dispute. How do you think we can help? Maybe you could provide a suggestion on the relevance of my edit to the page. Is there a distinction to be made between "trivia" and "encyclopedic information?" Opening comments by RjensenPlease 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 Hot StopPlease 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.
2008 Presidential Election talk page discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The discussion on the talk page (Talk:United States presidential election, 2008) began just yesterday. It's a bit too early for DRN.--SGCM (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Darn. Jayday617 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Naturalistic pantheism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The Mediation Committee has accepted the request. Discussion of the dispute has been deferred to mediation. SGCM (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview user:naturalistic has been editing the Naturalistic Pantheism page for years and using it as a vehicle to promote the "naturalistic pantheism" of "The World Pantheist Movement", his donation based environmentalist internet group that promotes a new age kind of pantheism. He relentlessly cites from his own book and website even though I reject that those are reliable sources. "Naturalistic pantheism" from the work of scholars mostly refers to Spinoza's pantheism (who used the word nature, as in natural laws). Popular philosopher Paul Tillich used the phrase to highlight the lack of freedom (determinism; fatalism; no free will) involved in this type of pantheism. Other philosophers too have used the phrase to highlight other aspects of monism, regarded as natural laws. Meanwhile, User:naturalistic and his organization has used the term Naturalistic pantheism to refer to nature as in supporting environmental concerns and political concerns. The user seems to think because they use the phrase (in their own very unique way), they have the right to be linked to the Wikipedia page and highlighted on the page. I disagree. I've already done much deleting of the controversial material from the page, but he is bringing it back. I'm hoping to get some help here from neutral parties because we are engaging in edit wars. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We had a previous dispute resolution regarding the main Pantheism page which was resolved due to volunteers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_41#Pantheism Recently, I nominated the page for deletion due to it being filled with promotional material for the World Pantheist Movement but was advised to keep it and use good sources instead. How do you think we can help? Please help us tackle the definition of Naturalistic pantheism and what kind of sources are appropriate. Opening comments by naturalisticPlease 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 currently an attempt in the article's talk page Talk:Naturalistic_pantheism sectioon Mediation, to resolve this dispute and try to find a mode of proceeding that gets beyond endless edit wars, including at least one senior editor and other editors. Allisgod has not contributed to the attempt at mediation there and instead has come straight to DRN. Personall I want this edit war to end and to find non-conflictual ways of proceeding and have tried to achieve this many times but have always been rebuffed by Allisgod. Naturalistic pantheism discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Comment - I helped at the prior DRN, and subsequently I edited the pantheism article to improve its sourcing. This is a case of an article with only two editors, and they don't see eye-to-eye. User Allisgod, generally, has an approach that is broader and more objective. User Naturalistic is very knowledgeable about pantheism, but has a bit of conflict of interest because they are a leader of a modern pantheistic movement. User Naturalistic tends to add more material about the modern aspects of pantheism, and tends to show a bit of undue emphasis on the interpretations and views of his own modern viewpoint. User Allisgod emphasizes the more "old fashioned" aspects of pantheism. As with many religious concepts, there is no single definition of "naturalistic pantheism", but the sources do use the term quite a bit, to mean various things. The essence of the dispute is figuring out how much emphasis to give to the various interpretations of the term. Both parties are rational and willing to engage. The parties used to spend a lot of time on ad hominem attacks, but I think they are now starting to focus more on content and sourcing, which is a good thing. Formal mediation may be a good path forward; or a DRN volunteer could try to mediate. --Noleander (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I am in favor of genuinely neutral mediation. I was rather unhappy with the last attempt at dispute resolution over Pantheism, since it did not produce or even attempt any resolution between the parties but rather resulted in a judgment/direct involvement by a senior editor, which in my opinion was not what dispute resolution is supposed to do. In fact it emboldened Allisgod to mould the entire article to his preferences. I have avoided involvement since that time but will resume editing there soon. What do we do now? Where do we post? Here or Mediation or Talk: Naturalistic Pantheism?--Naturalistic (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Malachi Martin
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | There has not been enough discussion to have a DRN case. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dear Sirs, The Malachi Martin article has recently been updated with bias comments in the introductory sentence calling Martin claims "unsubstantiated" a clear bias opinion which I change to saying his views were contested. A flame war is emerging with two editors undoing each others posts. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried to discuss issue without resolution. How do you think we can help? A neutral third party or parties is needed to intervene and help resolve the issue. Opening comments by Contaldo80Please 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 article cites sources that talk about the claims that Martin made in his written works - among them that Pope John XXIII was a freemason and that the Biblical anti-Christ was born in 1965. I think the lead should simply point to the fact that Martin made such unsubstantiated claims, and was thus controversial. I have asked other editors to point towards evidence that clarifies where those claims have actually ever been substantiated. The editor has failed to engage meaningfully in discussion and accuses me of bias.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Malachi Martin Article discussionPlease do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
The other party seems to be able to discuss it on the talk page, and your section should get more discussion before coming here. I'll close it in a couple of hours. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
|
We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Participants of discussion agree on preference of links to list over template. As proponents of the template don't argue this preference, I assume this dispute resolved. If it isn't, please file another case with focus on content dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:16, 4 September 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 This person has not been editing respectively with other users on the page, he continues on subjects. He brought up a subject two days ago and drops it brings it up again two days later continues on turning them into pointless arguments that grow wearisome, he has resorted to name calling in one dispute, which Toa has also noted below and just seems to be very disruptive. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Both me and Toa have tried talking with the editor and it does not seem to be getting either of us anywhere. How do you think we can help? He was warned if he continued to be disruptive on the talk page, he'd be blocked and he continued on with Toa after the warning. Opening comments by SwiftyOkay first and for most Star and the IP both need to stop bashing me and accusing me of things. Two when Star first came to me about the Succession boxes, yes I told him to go to the talk page about it and he dropped the subject and didn't say another word about it. I think it's messed up to bring it up two days later when most editors would assume it dropped and dead. Stars actions would be considered by any third party as inappropriate and disruptive were they in my shoes and the name calling Star did was unprovoked and he went outside Toa's comment of take it to the talk page and went elsewhere to get his way. Now had I done everything Star has done in the past two days I'd been blocked from Wikipedia. I do not think my comment of him taking his editing else where was out of line or wrong because Star has not shown me that he is doing anything constructive to the page, in fact it is the opposite. So what would anyone else have done? As far as the issues at hand well to me the one about the chart issue is resolved as neither Toa, myself, nor Status, another editor on the page, agree with Star on that and pretty much that's a three-way consensus there. The succession boxes. I'm not getting into it I think it was wrong of Star to drop it then bring it up again two days later that is that. Also I ask that any comments towards me that I find rude and offensive be stricken from here cause I am sick of trying to do right in the Wikicommunity to be the only one in trouble cause had it been me and I was doing the things Stars been doing with the name calling and disruption on the talk page, I'd been blocked from editing, new user or not. ^_^ Swifty*talk 16:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Toa Nidhiki05Please 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 primary concern on this topic is Star's vendetta against succession boxes - a failed RfC from two years ago isn't strong enough to enforce here. His allegation that I am a 'fanboy' is both incorrect and derogatory, as the term essentially implies I am editing to embellish the article. That is a bit of an odd idea as a succession box is simply a factual list of the song/album that preceded and succeeded the article's topic from the top spot. I'm more than willing to discuss this and was open to changing the first issue (unsourced peaks) if consensus supported it, but sockpuppets (if the IP is indeed one) and
Opening comments by StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsPlease limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
I made 7 edits in total to the article, 4 of which were double reverts of the issues in question, so really we're just talking about two edits I did that provoked a "stand down" order by Swifty: 1) the removal of the succession boxes and 2) reverting another's edits that made changes without updating sources. That edit was in violation of WP:V and I feel my revert was valid and is not worthy of further discussion. As the core policy states, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I was accused of being lazy for not fixing the citation myself. As for the succession boxes, per WP:CONS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus"; therefore, I argue that there was no consensus to have them added into the article since I reverted the edit. At that point, I would expect the person who added it to accept my revert or take it to the talk page. My edit was reverted and I was told by Swifty that I'm the one who should take it to the page. I believe there are ownership issues here, since Swifty will keep something he likes to be added without consensus (and revert if challenged), yet if one makes an edit he doesn't like and it's an automatic revert. It was this concern that led me to take the verification issue to a neutral talk page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Opening comments by Adam muglistonPlease 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 66.168.247.159Please 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.
Comments by uninvolved Worm That TurnedHey folks. DRN chaps and chapettes, if I'm commenting out of turn or in the wrong section, please do feel free to move or remove my comments. I'm not exactly involved, but I am Swifty's mentor, so I do have a hat on the edge of the ring. There appears to be a couple of content issues at the heart of this, firstly regarding the chart placing - if a single has charted at a different position than reported by the one source used in the {{singlechart}} template, do we hold incorrect information on the encyclopedia or information which is contradictory to the source. The annoying thing about the situation is that both positions are incorrect and both would be fixed given time. The other content issue is referring to "succession boxes" and whether they should be included in musical articles. They are used in television episodes, which makes sense as an episode my perpetuate a story from a previous episode. They are used in political offices, to help follow who carried on the work. Is there any point to them on song articles? Well, there was an RfC over 18 months ago, where there was no consensus to add or remove them. As there is no global consensus, a local consensus should count, but it's 2 vs 2, with the arguments from both sides sitting in the bottom half of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg WormTT(talk) 09:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together 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 everyone, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I've collapsed the discussion above, as the above sections aren't meant to be used for discussion. Rather, you should use your own section to calmly and neutrally outline your perspective on the dispute. Once you've done all done that, we can get on with starting dispute resolution proper. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the process here. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, let's wait for opening comments before starting the discussion. It's not Twitter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Request - Could some of the parties please update their opening statements to elaborate on the "succession box" issue? That appears to be a content-based issue that is appropriate for DRN. Is the problem the succession info at the bottom of the article? or in the InfoBox? Or both? Are there any other content issues? --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Parties are now welcome to start discussion. I would also request to clarify, whether the problem is only with the way the discussion about "succession box" was held (conduct issue) or also with the appropriateness of the box (content issue)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
(Comic relief:) I would just like to point out the irony of the title of the article. Maybe the parties to this dispute will someday Get Back Together. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Question to parties: why is this "succession box" needed? What purpose does it serve? Please, try to be brief. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
|
List of General Hospital cast members
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This dispute is about WP:NOT perception, and DRN is not a right place for probing for community consensus. WP:Request for comments was started at WT:What Wikipedia is not § Verifiable future events with no real world impact yet to resolve the matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. WT:WikiProject Soap Operas#ephemeral content about upcoming cast changes and non-encyclopedic section heading at List of The Young and the Restless cast members Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview List of General Hospital cast members and other soap opera character lists frequently have a section called "Comings and goings" in which sourced announcements of future cast changes are tracked. I believe that such sections fail multiple Wikipedia principles, both on their face and particularly in toto. Musicfreak and Kelly Marie disagree. Their position appears to be that is that the information is sourced. WP:V My position is that the following apply:
Have you tried to resolve this previously? discussion on the SOAPS talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#ephemeral_content_about_upcoming_cast_changes_and_non-encyclopedic_section_heading_at_List_of_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members How do you think we can help? provide outside opinions on how Wikipedia policies apply (or do not) Opening comments by Kelly Marie 0812Please 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 am new to disputes and guess the points I made on the talk page will be referenced?
Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Musicfreak7676The fact that soap articles are continuing to be targeted by editors because of the work us editors do is beyond my comprehension. The pages have been in working order for several years and it isn't until now that an editor is wanting to seem to change them. Admins have never seemed to have had an issue before with how the pages have been run. And the fact that only US soap articles are being targeted seems to be a bit suspicious under my eye. I fail to see how the section violates WP:CRYSTALBALL in that they are not added onto the cast lists until the episode(s) in question have aired on-screen. And the comments made per my fellow editor Kelly Marie I echo whole heartedly. And this issue should be brought into the whole WP:SOAPS]] community, and not call out two specific editors. That seems a bit WP:PERSONAL to me. Musicfreak7676 my talk page! 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC) List of General Hospital cast members 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've looked at the article, sources and positions. Honestly I think the complaints have been addressed pretty well by Kelly Marie and Musicfreak in the previous threads. Basically I think the problem boils down to an opinion about what should be included in Wikipedia, in short: Notability. If this were tracking something seemingly more notable than TV soap operas, we probably wouldn't be having the discussion. Hurricanes for example, data is being added and deleted all the time, on an hourly basis, much less once a year. I can't speak to the notability of soap operas in general, but overall the sources seem solid and comply with Verifiability. I see no reason to delete it. I do agree that renaming the section to 'cast changes' is more neutral and looks less like fan magazine stuff than "comings and goings". Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not particularly optimistic about WP:CRYSTAL: reports on cast changes that have not influenced the series yet are rumors and speculations, and should not be reported unless they are notable on their own. In the lesser degree the same idea is expressed in WP:NOT#NEWS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment - This DRN case impacts several articles within a project, not just one article. Therefore I recommend that WP soap opera project take responsibility for this issue. They are an old project with, apparently, 44 active members and 3,700 articles. This DRN case only has 3 parties. The soap opera Project knows the material best, knows the sources. Granted, there was a brief discussion on the project talk page ... but it started only 10 days ago and only involved a few project members. I recommend that an RfC be initiated on the project talk page, that the project members be explicitly notified, and try to get a consensus on this by the project members themselves. If, after a month, the full soap opera project cannot get consensus, then a DRN case would be a good recourse. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
RfC?It seems that the situation requires wider community input. So far two places to conduct WP:RfC were proposed: On one hand, WikiProject members are more knowledgeable on topic and may be more prepared to deal with issue. On the other hand, the question is about application of several rules of WP:NOT, so probably WP:NOT talk page could help to resolve the issue with greater degree of consistency with the rest of Wikipedia. One may also think that people investing their time to improve soap operas' coverage are more inclined (or even biased towards) including more information about soap operas then other editors would find necessary. So, where should the RfC be posted? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This way? (Emphasis to be preserved.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Psychoanalysis
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | The content in question should be rewritten in prose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 4 September 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 The dispute is whether or not to include a chart based on a study of effectiveness for psychoanalysis. The study is based on 111 meta-studies and clearly abides by WP:MEDRS. As the largest and most authoritative evaluation of the topic, it clearly warrants such a chart. The only counter argument given is that it's a "flawed" study, the only evidence to support that being the opinion of the other editor. Have you tried to resolve this previously?
How do you think we can help? By deciding whether or not the chart warrants inclusion into the article. Opening comments by WidescreenI'm form de:wp so please excuse my bad english. CartoonDiablo (CD) insist on extend the article with one table he has written together by only one french govermental survey published in 2004. The field of psychotherapy research is huge. There are existing thousends and thousends of studies, Randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, Systematic reviews, overlooks, guidelines, surveys and published assessments. And there are a lot of different approches of what effectiveness means. For example: The approach of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) or the evidence levels of the German Agency for Quality in Medicine. So my point is, that you can't cite only one self-provided table taken from only one survey to describe the results of a complete research area. CD also makes some wrong assertions. For example:
But the main point is, that CD ignores all other releases in this field which recieves much more attention in scientiffic circles. We discuss that in previous discussions Futhermore I feel ridicules by CDs kind of argumentation. His argumentation often devoid of any basis. That makes it difficult to have a real excange of arguments. His only real argument is, that the study hits some criterias from Wikipedia:MEDRS like thousands upon thousands of other studies also does. I'm finally not sure if this study hits the criterias because it's been never Peer-reviewed. I wouldn'd use it because there are so much better studies like this it's unnecessary to use one with a poor quality. That's nonserious and non-enzyclopedical. --WSC ® 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Psychoanalysis 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'm Ebe123. I will be a mediator for this dispute. I would like Widescreen to explain why he thinks the studies are flawed. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the compromise offered by Noleander in the last DRN is reasonable. The problem here is neutrality, not strictly reliability. The study might be reliable, but highlighting it with a huge chart is unwarranted, as per WP:BALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Summarize the contents of the chart with prose or text.--SGCM (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
CartoonDiablo has agreed to Noleander's suggestion of removing the chart and replacing it with prose. If there are no further objections, I believe that this dispute has been resolved.--SGCM (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If the position is that it can only be shown as prose than that's frankly ridiculous and not in any way required by WP:MEDRS. Having a chart saves time of saying whether or not something was proven or presumed effective for about a dozen different diseases three times over.
As to reviewers the final reviewer in this case is Ebe123. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi SGCM, I'm sorry to contradict you. The study isn't a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis means the mathematical reprocessing of primary studies. The work is a systematic rewiew. But it doesn't reprocessing the rct's and meta-analyses mathematicly. So that means it is no "meta-meta-analysis". [4] I always thought that anglophon people see a different in tertiary sources than germans do. But it seems to be the same. So here are my proposals for solution:
--WSC ® 07:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I close this thread, as it seems to be a reiteration of the same argument. The prose is the only solution here, and is a recommended way to serve the information on Wikipedia. The problems with weight of opinions are easier addressed with editing, which is severely limited with the form of content representation. I foresee a new content dispute about this particular source, which would emerged once its weight will change within the prosified version. Feel free to file new case if that happens. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
|
File:SA Army General rank.jpg
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | "Discussion hasn't started on FFD. Disputes over inclusion/deletion should be resolved through the deletion process, not DRN.--SGCM (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)" ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
The moment the images were loaded into a table (some not by me) the images were renominated
Users involved Dispute overview I have uploaded a number of free images depicting rank insignia. The simplest and most elegant way of presenting them is in a table. However this violates WP:NFG I am supported in this view by a number of editors who work on the pages that these images will be used on. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried discussion in the discussion section How do you think we can help? I believe that user Stefan2 is being over zealous and in-flexible in his reading of WP:NFG I believe that we have a case to make this an exception and that this should be treated (as WP:NFG states) on a case by case basis As I cannot find a forum to get concensus on this I would appreciate another opinion on this. Opening comments by Stefan2Please 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.
Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 3#File:SA Army General rank.jpg 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.
|
CBS Records
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | After reaching no consensus here the case was pushed forward to MEDCOM. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/CBS Records for details. If Mediation Committee declines it, please consider starting RfC at Talk:Sony Music Entertainment, Talk:Columbia Records or WT:CFORK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:18, 5 September 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 For any new DRN volunteers interested in participating in the dispute, this is the basic summary of the (very long) first DRN. The current dispute is based on two issues.
These are the positions of the two parties:
Both parties have firmly established their opinions on the previous DRN. So how do we compromise? Have you tried to resolve this previously? This is a fresh restart of a previous DRN. The first DRN went way off topic over a conduct dispute on previous consensus. For this case, let's focus on the policies. How do you think we can help? Hopefully, we'll get more third party volunteers involved. Opening comments by Steelbeard1Please 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.
CBS Records International was Columbia Records' international arm founded in 1962 to release recordings on the CBS label as EMI's Columbia Graphophone Company unit owned the Columbia Records trademark outside North America. The "CBS Records" entity Norton is referring to was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment on January 1, 1991. CBS Records was the name of both the record company and the record label. The record label was also officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991 after Sony acquired the rights to the trademark from EMI. Norton still does not understand that the history of the CBS Records company prior to 1991 properly belongs in the Sony Music article. I have created a compromise solution by creating a CBS Records disambig page. The purpose of disambig pages, of course, is to direct readers to the correct article and to alert editors whose wikilinks go to the wrong article to correct the link(s). I've been doing that since the 2006 CBS Records article was created. I've also had to do this regarding links to Columbia Records which should go to the unaffiliated former EMI label of the same name called Columbia Graphophone Company. The current CBS Records (2006) is not affiliated with any former CBS Records entity that is currently owned by Sony Music and therefore requires a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )We have 1,300 incoming links for "CBS Records" and they are for the company as it existed up until 1991. These links now land on a page called CBS Records which is a disambiguation page and it lists other business entities such as CBS Records (2006) and CBS Records International which are not the correct target for any of the incoming links. I want the companies listed in the current CBS Records disambiguation page moved to "CBS Records (disambiguation)". I want a short article on "CBS Records" as it existed up until 1991. This way the 1,300 links will land on the proper business entity. We have separate article for all the companies absorbed by General Motors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by RothorpeCBS was a major record label for several decades, so it should have its own article under its own name. Rothorpe (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC) CBS Records discussionI've restarted the DRN dispute with a fresh case. The first case went way off topic over a conduct dispute. The actual content dispute is this: Does CBS Records (1938-1990) (currently in the Sony Music article) deserve its own article? And is it the primary topic of the CBS Records page? For both parties, please cite policies to support your arguments and avoid bringing up the dispute on prior consensus. Volunteers of DRN are invited to contribute their much needed opinions.--SGCM (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
There are 1,300 incoming links for "CBS Records" land on a page called CBS Records with a history of the company before it was absorbed by Sony. Then change the current CBS Records, which is a disambiguation page, to "CBS Records (disambiguation)". The target of the links should be the business entity as described by the New York Times and Billboard. We have separate article for all the companies absorbed by General Motors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In late 1990, CBS Records made a significant name change in preparation for the complete name changes at the start of 1991. In late 1990, CBS Records changed the name of its classical music label CBS Masterworks Records to Sony Classical Records. When I last checked, the CBS Masterworks Records wikilink redirects to the Sony Classical Records article.Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment - [From an uninvolved editor] (1) On the question of whether CBS Records (1938-1990) should have a dedicated article: I've read some of the sources, and it appears that the events in 1990 were simply a re-name of the company. The employees & products were not altered; there was continuity. For instance, a Reuters article from 1990 writes "The Sony Corporation's CBS Records Inc. will change its name to Sony Music Entertainment Inc., the record company said yesterday." Finally, the SME article (including the 1938-90 history) is small: only 1,700 words. For these reasons, I would suggest not having a dedicated article for 1938-1990. Someday, if the 1938-1990 section of the SME article gets large, it can be split-out as its own article, following WP:SPINOUT. (2) On the question of disambiguation: That is a difficult choice. On the one hand, due to the confusing nature of the various business entities with similar names, it makes sense to have CBS Records be a full disambiguation page, so readers can see the options; on the other hand, there are a lot of links to "CBS Records", and the vast majority of those are intending to link to the 1938-1990 business entity; therefore it should link directly to Sony Music Entertainment. This is a close call, but because of the large number of existing links, I'd lean towards making CBS Records a redirect to SME, with a good disambiguation hatnote at the top of the SME article. But the disambig page option is also sensible. --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Now how about developing the CBS Records International article further as I think it is not developing because we are still bickering here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Still waiting for enhancements to the CBS Records International article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the exact quote? And the last full paragraph on page 202 summarizes too much. All I know is the LP was introduced in 1948 and CBS Records was the leading record company in America (of course it was from 1966 when it officially started under that name until Universal Music absorbed PolyGram in 1999) and CBS Records was sold to Sony in 1988. The parent record company prior to 1966 was Columbia Records. Remember that the CBS Records name was not introduced until 1962 internationally and the CBS Records parent company did not exist until 1966 when the corporate reorganization that made the CBS Records entity the parent record company took place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC) SummaryA quick overview of the opinions above:
So, any solutions? Input from other third party volunteers is welcome.--SGCM (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there should be articles about record labels that we subsequently renamed, sold out or otherwise morphed into other labels. In this case I see Sony Music Entertainment as a solid central point of everything that ended being incorporated there. In my opinion defunct entries should be subsections with redirects (and DAB page in cases of ambiguity, like in this one). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Current consensus and closingBased on the discussion here and on Talk:CBS Records, so far, we've had Steelbeard1 opposing the primary topic (that pre-Sony CBS Records is the primary topic) and opposing the dedicated article, Noleander opposing the dedicated article and neutral on the primary topic, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Rothorpe, Schmidt, and Moxy supporting the primary topic and supporting the dedicated article, Bkonrad, 78.26, and Simon.rashleigh opposing the primary topic, SGCM opposing the primary topic and neutral on the dedicated article, and Czarkoff and DGG opposing the dedicated article. Once the case hits the 8 day mark, and without a compromise developing, the case will have be closed as no consensus. Discussion after the DRN closes will be deferred to Talk:CBS Records. If future dispute resolution is required, WP:MEDCOM is recommended.--SGCM (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Aaron Schock
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | I'll go ahead and close this. Engleham is currently blocked, looks like for another day. The wording being edit warred over was far from neutral and it certainly looks like a BLP violation. Wikipedia isn't a rumour mill to put in rumours like this which can effect someones life. Closing per reasoning of Hasteur. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a dispute as to whether or not information about gay rumors should be included in the Aaron Schock article. I believe that including such rumors is in violation of WP:BLP policies, and that to warrant inclusion in the article, such rumors would need to be backed up with multiple, reliable third-party sources. I don't believe that standard is currently being met. Therefore, I believe that information about gay rumors should not be included in the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to discuss this issue on the article's talk page, but this has not been productive. I have also filed a request for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. I am filing this request now because I believe that time is of the essence in resolving what I believe to be a WP:BLP issue. How do you think we can help? I think that bringing in more editors will help ensure that the article adheres to WP:BLP policies. I think we could engage in a substantive discussion about whether the disputed content should or should not be included, and why. Opening comments by EnglehamAaron Schock 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.
|
Carlos Gardel
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Per WP:WEIGHT, verifiable content should be arranged within the page according to the weight of corresponding viewpoint. Obviously the Uruguay theory gained much less acceptance, and for the whole run of the dispute no compelling sources were brought to demonstrate the opposite. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There’s and ongoing dispute as to the POB of Mr Gardel. One theory claims he was born in Uruguay while a second claims France. Reading Gardel’s bio I realized that the english version treats the first theory lightly, focusing mainly on the second, and, following Wikipedia’s dispute resolution guidelines I proceeded to follow normal protocol. My first improvements were merely tweaks of the wording as recommended. They were removed by editor Binksternet asking for me to site the sources. I answered that the sources already in use could be used for either theory, and proceeded to reference my edits within the existing sources. Again they where removed, but this time by a second editor (oscarthecat), placing me in an “edit war” , and who, when given the same explanation seemed OK. Again they were removed by Binksternet claiming the sources as not valid (although they were for the original work). I proceeded to try to load the documents that back both theories in an attempt to state what document back what claim. They where Gardel’s Argentine passport and national ID, a copy of a Bordeaux census that shows a Charles Gardes born in South America and the will allegedly written by Gardel (not loaded). The documents were immediately removed by Binksternet citing proportionality of resources. I asked him not to continue to remove my improvements and to allow me time to garnish the necessary sources that back the first claim, which outnumber the second one. He simply re-edited the section in question and told me that he would not allow both theories to be treated equally and that any additional sources placed by me could be removed arbitrarily by Wikipedia. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Tried using the sections of the same sources that were in use originally in order to show that both claims are balanced equally. Tried referencing original government documents that back both claims, and that counter the other in an attempt to avert judgment. How do you think we can help? This dispute can be solved by clearly and simply placing equally both theories side by side, each backed by its own documental proof and stating, again backed by documental proof, why each theory claims the other lacks merit. Opening comments by BinksternetThis is a simple case of the proper application of the WP:Neutral point of view policy. The biographies about Gardel, encyclopedias mentioning Gardel, articles in scholarly magazines about Gardel—the great majority of these say that Gardel was born in France and that he laid a false trail of a Uruguayan birth starting in 1920 when he was almost 30. The matter of proportion is properly applied in the article by greatly emphasizing the French birth but mentioning the controversy put forward by a few, that Uruguay was really his birthplace, not France. The problem with Zorzaluruguay (the user name means "Song Thrush (Gardel nickname) Uruguay") is that he is relying on blog sources and original research to put forward his point. He wants the Uruguayan birth to be given equal status so that the reader can decide the issue. This would make for an imbalance in relation to weight; an artificially equal playing field for facts that are not at all equal in reliable sources. If Zorzaluruguay were to bring facts in from reliable books he would have something worth putting in the article. This has not happened yet. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC) @Zorzaluruguay: Published sources from the 1920s and 1930s should be considered primary sources in this case. No newspaper of the day had the whole story about Gardel, so why would we use such a newspaper to prove a point? Instead, modern researchers should be used as WP:Secondary sources because they have sifted through all the quotes and known facts to analyze Gardel's life in the big picture, and to present a thesis on what the truth is. Books, magazines and journal articles are the best sources. Self-published sources such as blogs are much lower quality—they cannot stand up to contradiction from scholars. Opening comments by oscarthecatPlease 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.
Carlos Gardel 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.
Request - Zorzaluruguay: could you update your opening statement to identify some specific sources you are using to support your position? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC) My first corrections on Gardel's section involved referencing and citing sources. They where the same sources referenced by the original author of the section. They where removed citing wikipedia's sources guidelines. I re-inserted my edits but this time I referenced the specific sections within the original sources that dealt with the theory that he was born in Uruguay. Again they where removed but this time together with the sources of the original article, but leaving the original article intact. So this time I thought best to show the documentation that supports both theories and the arguments that followers of each make for and against the other. They where removed again, with a different reason, but this time the article was severely re-written by Mr binksternet (I do not know what this call sign stands for) to the point of nihiling the need for this section. My point was never to argue the merits of one point over the other but to simply state both theories, but it looks that that was never binksternet's point. I can begin uploading and naming sources for the first theory. That is no problem because while Mr. Gardel was alive all articles, interviews, reports and the like based on him stated one fact. My intentions to do this was told to Mr Binksternet and was welcomed to do so but told that wikipedia could remove them arbitrarily (I ask that you view the logs created in Carlos Gardel's talk section as well as mine, Mr. Binksternet's and Mr. Oscarthecat's). All of these sources are backed by several government documents, which are the ones I tried to show but was not permitted to. These documents are from various countries. The documents are: a census of the Bordeaux region of 1887 that shows a Charles Gardes of 11 born in South America, Gardel's argentine's passport and national ID showing his POB, and the fourth document (not loaded) was the alleged will. The first three a part of the documentation that supports the Uruguay theory, the fourth is the only one that backs the French theory. Both are severely treated by opposing camps, and I wanted to show what they were. That is the basis for all the books you'll find on this subject. If you want to, but I do not think this is the place, I can site the reason for and against as presented by them, or allow the documents to speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Sources: The following sources are not centered on the documents already provided. Those can serve as additional sources or, as I intended, complement the article directly. The sources cited below are recorded statements made directly by Gardel and an interview made to Berta Gardes where all her statements punch holes to the French theory. I could rewrite the whole piece based on these items alone, which was not my intention. There's also a whole library of indirect sources, interviews to friends and fellow musicians of the time, taken as early as 1902, which I didn't include because it would take me away from the origianl scope of my re-edit, it would include wikipedia as a forum to discuss his nationality, and thirdly because I don't have the will nor time to go over ALL the existing articles, reports, interviews and papers made about him that eco he was born in Uruguay. a) “Vida y milagros de Carlos Gardel” by Nelson Bayardo (1931, La Republica); Gardel states to have been born in Tacuarembo, Uruguay; b) “El Pobre Gardel" by Cesar Gonzalez Ruano (1935, ABC Madrid); Spaniard interview that depicts Gardel as uruguayan; c) "Carlos Gardel" (1933, Popular film #336); french newsman interviews Gardel while in paramount studios regarding the POB controversy, was he ARGENTINEAN or Uruguayan, where Gardel afirms he was born in Uruguay, that his first concerts where held in Montevideo and that he moved to Buenos Aires when 16y d) "GARDEL EN EL BARRIO SUR DE MONTEVIDEO" (1935, El Diario Montevideo); Shows where Gardel lived in Montevideo as a young kid; e) "La tragedia de Medellin" (24/06/1935, Noticias Graficas Argentina); argentinian nespaper reports the crash, depicts repeatedly Gardel as Uruguayan born; f) "La Verdadera Vida De Carlos Gardel" (06/06/1096, La Cancion Moderna); Berta Gardes is interviewed a year after the crash. She states she couldn't communicate with Carlitos because they spoke different languajes; --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The validity of the passport and national ID has already been decided and has never been contested by either camp, and it should not be the case here. The section in Gardel's bio that I wanted to contribute to regards the controversy on his POB. My contribution is firstly the inclusion of the documents that support each claim, regardless of the validity that they might or might not have, according to either camp or third parties, and secondly mention the arguments for the merits, or lack of, that each camp gives them, without interpreting or analyzing them.--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Doing so only gets us knee-deep in an argument that everybody else gets into when this subject is raised, and it's silliness is what I thought interesting to show. This a BIG "he said she said" fight, and everyone wants to stand clear of it. Isn't there a disclaimer that you can place at the beginning of the section that warns the reader? One that warns that in actuality this argument is like the Lilliputian feud on what side you should begin eating a boiled egg from? That or we can leave it as the spanish version, or reference it maybe? This will be better than to claim that Gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had above. To the ones that were originally in the file we can add the ones referenced above and the documents, which although they can be classified as primary they could also be included. But I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you want me to look for their isbn's?--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well that's the thing isn't it? All materials that support one theory is denied because it counters the other. All materials that support the Uruguay theory are based on documents and/or references from that period or earlier, which is the time he was alive. Primary sources is defined as evidence, and that's all there is, evidence that he was born in Uruguay, evidence that the Charles Gardes alleged to be him was born in Amerique du Sud. There is no evidence that Gardes was in fact Gardel. The only evidence that he was was an unwitnessed handwritten note allegedly written by him. There is no birth certificate that states he was born in Uruguay because, like in Argentina, at the time it was prohibited to register children born out of wedlock (as silly as it seems now), they could only do so when they reached adulthood. Why did he then took out an Uruguayan ID card when he just could have said he was born out of wedlock in the interior of Argentina and obtain the same or better results? Because everybody knew where he was from. Everybody knew he arrived in Buenos Aires at 16, not 2. What substantiates this claim are the sources I mentioned which you won't consider. If we are now reviewing the merits of these documents based on what the french theorist say, then I have to say that it has never been proven that Gardel lied, nor the possible reason. It has been inferred yes that it was to avoid draft, but that argument is moot because he received gunshot wounds, in the chest and in the leg, from Che Guevara's father making him ineligible for active service (not denied by french theorists), and there are records that he traveled to Tacuarembo to recuperate (there are hospital and other primary sources as well as secondary sources that back this up, but its of the time so now I don't know if it meets wikipedia's guidelines for publication). As I stated before, this section involves a controversy and all I wanted to do is align it with the spanish version of Gardel. If you regard secondary sources of the time has evidentiary and unqualified to support the argument then remove the section, its fine with me, but to state that there is no argument because the only sources you allow supports one version of the fact is silly. In all fairness removing the section altogether would be better then to have wikipedia as a source that gardel applied for uruguayan citizenship. I recommend that if you still want to disavow these sources, if the lack merit sole because it counters what the other side says (sic), then simply reference the spanish version, if you don't want to do that well I guess its fine. I'm not going to waste any more time arguing. Regards --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but the reason given to disavow those documents is exactly that. To quote "Sources from the 1920s and 1930s are not reliable, because it was during the 1920s that Gardel allegedly began falsifying his place of birth." This is exactly what the french theory states (without proof and only referencing each other).--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This case will be closed as resolved within 24 hours. There is a consensus that modern reliable second party sources must be used to make claims that might be contested.--SGCM (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I would broaden SGCM's suggestion and ask parties to list sources inside this table:
Once replaced placeholders, please only add sources to the bottom of respective table cell, so that they could be further referred to by numbers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry for the delay, I was writting a paper that allows to weave all the sources. Besides the evidenciary sources showned before, I'm adding and additional 5 (there are more but I didn't want the paper to be source heavy). The first, although from 1945, deals with the accident itself but is of particular interest because it shows the charred remains of Gardel's passport. The next three are scholastic works performed by historian Silva Cabrera. In his first work reference Mr Silva deals with the general documentation of Gardel's POB, his second work deals with documentation from the 1902 uruguayan national ID that Gardel solicited, this request is composed of two pieces, one which obtains a sworn statement of the padre of the church where he was baptized (which includes parents' given and surnames) and the second where he requests his ID (again naming his parents). His third work deals with the accident and deals throughout the book on his POB. The fifth source references argentinian law that states if a government application is requested with false information its void and null, so if Mr Gardel lied as they want to so badly then he's not argentinian, possibly venezuelan (not quiding). --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The titles in the table above suggest that "Uruguay" theory doesn't deserve its current weight. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Question to Zorzaluruguay, do any of the sources that you've provided explicitly state that the French theory is wrong or inaccurate? Translated excerpts of the text would be most helpful for the volunteers here to evaluate it.--SGCM (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry about the lenght of my responses but from the beginning I responded by supplieng sources and references, only to have them denied because they were either too old, contradicted french theory, so I feel that what we're doing is checking the merits of one theory as measured by the number of sources the other has, and I feel that somehow I have to explain the sources provided and not just drop them out of context. So, of the three sources showned above, the mid three are scholastic. MR. Silva Cabrera is a scholar and historian of note with works published by private binding houses (there is no university press in Uruguay). Only the mid three deal directly with the merits of the french theory (it wasn't given credence for lack of direct evidence and its contradictory statements), by showing documented proof of Gardel's nationality (complemented with interviews of the time and later), by showing that there were much too many Charles Gardes in Toulouse, one born in the mid 70's in south america, one in 1890 and another (one of these?) who died in WWI, and by showing the unwitness handwritten note attributed to Gardel that is the keystone of the french theory. Its not that they need to prove the french theory wrong, is that the french theory never showed evidence that the uruguay theory is. --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Black Swan (film)
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Resolved, parties seem to be agreeing with SubSteven. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I corrected what I initially perceived as a typo, “It was perfect” instead of “I was perfect”. I was reverted and referred to the talk page, where I discovered that this is a long-standing bone of contention. I then spent a lot of time and effort on the talk page trying to convince a trio of editors, only to have everything I said brushed off but never properly responded to. So given the unlikelihood of ever convincing people whose minds were made up, I made a compromise edit stating that both interpretations exist. (Bbb23 had already expressed unwillingness to spend too much time and effort on this, I certainly didn’t want to either, so this seemed to be an unexceptionable way of leaving everybody equally satisfied and equally unsatisfied, and moving on). That edit too was reverted by Debresser as “Unacceptable to me”. Their belief that the line is “It was perfect” is based on an apparently pirated early draft of the script posted on the website Moviecultists. My contention that opinions differ is based on the fact that the line is given as “I was perfect” on IMDb and on the vast majority of comments in blogs etc from people who saw the film. 11 of the first 13 quotes I found by googling “Black Swan ending” quote the line as “I was perfect”, for example: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/blackswan.html My edit therefore reads: her last words are variously interpreted as "I felt it. Perfect. It was perfect", or "I felt it. Perfect. I was perfect".
Only the discussion on the talk page. How do you think we can help? Tell them that my edit should stand.
Opening comments by Bbb23 I decline to participate unless the discussion is restricted to content, not editor conduct. It hasn't started well.
Although I'm still not happy with the conduct discussions, I commend SGCM and Amadscientist for trying to keep the discussion focused. Because of that, I'll make a few comments. I've seen the film, but a long time ago. I don't remember what Portman said at the end. The Plot section of film articles is an odd beast because generally it's not only unsourced, but acceptable to be unsourced, at least in practice; I haven't found a guideline on it. I don't care that much how this issue is resolved as long as there's a viable consensus for it. I have no personal preference, except possibly to eliminate the quote entirely. My only reason for that preference is practical - to eliminate the argument and what I consider to be a waste of editor resources. Still, even if we decide to do that, someone will probably come along in the future and add it back in. Some things never seem to go away. I don't like the idea of putting in both perceptions because I think it's too much Wikipedia-type clutter for something this trivial. Also, to the extent people are referring to Awien's latest sources, they are blogs. Essentially, it's like taking some kind of a vote, but instead of a vote of Wikipedia editors, it's a vote of some unauthoritative subset of the public. I'm against that. I'd rather vote among Wikipedians. Normally, of course, a consensus isn't reached by vote numbers, but, again, this is an odd context - it's just a question of what an editor thinks they heard. I, of course, would not vote because I don't know. Besides, I don't particularly want to vote. I kind of like the idea of looking at a DVD or some other disk with subtitles and see what the subtitles say, although I've seen many times that subtitles are wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by DebresserPlease 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 version "It" is based on the script (doesn't really matter whether it is a pirated version or not), and on what I heard myself. I checked it a few times. So did others. The change to "I" was made, and reverted, and the discussion was reopened. The editor did not provide a source for "I" in the discussion (till today). If he would have, I would have accepted a text with both versions and their sources. Such is accepted practice on Wikipedia, to have both versions and their sources (with the exception of non-notable fringe opinions). The problem could have been avoided, if Awien would have been less bold (both with the original edit and his proposed compromise version) and discussed his edits, and would have provided sources. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by SubSevenAwien has failed to produce anything substantial to back up his edits. We have a copy of a script that confirms the line as "It was perfect". You can quibble about whether it was a leaked version of the script, maybe it wasn't the absolute final-final version, but what has Awien countered this with? Not much. Quotes on IMDb are user-submitted. For all we know, Awien was the one who submitted it to IMDb. I don't think he did, but the point is, this is not a reliable source. Bouncing around on Google digging up various WP:SPS links doesn't help your case either (though the one that Awien linked to doesn't quote either version of the line verbatim anyway). Yes, I'm sure there are people in the world, like Awien, who misinterpreted the whispered dialogue. So what? There is no reason to acknowledge it in the article. In addition, anyone who owns the Black Swan DVD, or can get their hands on a copy, can watch the ending with subtitles turned on and confirm that the dialogue is indeed "It was perfect". I suppose that posting a brief video clip of this scene with the subtitles would be considered reproduction of copyrighted material, so I haven't done so, though I'd be happy to go to the trouble in order to put the issue to rest. No version of the "compromise" edit would be acceptable to me. --SubSeven (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Black Swan (film) discussion
Here's a compromise. The article will say that it is uncertain, and provide all the (properly sourced) possibilities. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops! Went too fast and missed Sub Seven above. Where DO we stand now? Goodnight anyway. Awien (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
After watching this discussion for some time I would note that indeed the importance of the exact wording is not important for the article. I would suggest to get rid of the quote entirely or rewrite the description of the film's ending to cover the idea behind the quote. Keeping both versions violates WP:NPOV, as it gives an impression that the exact word is important and was discussed in sources as such, which doesn't seem to be true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
|