Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Two opposing positions on content presentation were presented, with generally well-supported arguments. After extended discussion, and proposal of a compromise solution, which was considered, neither side ultimately modified their stance. An argument was made by a moderator that one side in fact appeared to be well-supported by policies and guidelines, while the other, while not contravening PAGs, was not equally supported - this did not encourage movement. RfC would likely have a good chance of arriving at a consensus, if parties wish to pursue that option. --Tsavage (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate. Now at the level of revert warring. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion at the article talk page and User talk:Neve-selbert. How do you think we can help? Provide a mediating service, part of which may involve reminding dispute participants of policies and guidelines. Summary of dispute by Neve-selbertI concur with GoodDay; in her positions as Queen, she is predominately referred to as being Queen of the United Kingdom (rather Queen of England, a popular misconception) rather than as Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Bahamas or even Queen of Pakistan. Instead of over-complicating the article with the inclusion of every single sovereign state and entity she has ever reigned over in her entire lifetime (derived originally from the British throne), we can simply add a link to the Commonwealth realms, and readers can click this link and understand why, exactly she is the monarch—and has been the monarch—of almost a quarter of a hundred states. To follow the argument of Miesianiacal would be to remove the link within the table pertaining to the other Commonwealth realms, as he would make this collective group redundant by naming tirelessly and individually every single sovereign throne she has ever sat on. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GoodDayIMHO, there shouldn't be any disagreement at the article-in-question. Verifable sources will easily proove that Elizabeth II is associated mostly with the United Kingdom. She was born there, got married there, was crowned there, will likely be buried there. Because she resides predominantly there, the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. Let's be honest, aswell. Do we often see headlines like Queen of Tuvalu, visits.... or howabout Queen of Antigua and Barbados, visited....? we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Furthermore, having the United Kingdom and the other realms spread out into the article-in-question, in such a manner (instead of just having United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwelath realms), is un-necessary. For the article's structure, we should go with the consice & compact version. So again, there really shouldn't be a dispute at all. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MiesianaicalIn the row for Elizabeth II, in the 'state' column, there is currently depicted a British flag preceding the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". In the 'position' column is "Queen (1952-present)". The problems with the aforementioned are: a) Elizabeth II has been queen of only four of the 16 realms since 1952. She became queen of the 12 others at various later dates. b) The Commonwealth realms (what the "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is indirectly referring to) are not collectively represented by the British flag. Even if the flag is intended to be associated only with the words "United Kingdom", it is still possible for readers unfamiliar with the topic of the Commonwealth realms to interpret it as being associated with the whole bloc of countries. c) The UK holds no special status apart from, let alone "above", the other realms. Some editors claim it does by virtue of not having a governor-general and the monarch will die and be buried there. However, those are differences and "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "superior" or justify special treatment. This fact is recognised in the row for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was both President of France and Co-Prince of Andorra; it does not say in the list "President of France and head of one other state", though Giscard is (some editors would likely say) "known mostly" as President of France, will be buried there, had a representative in Andorra, etc. And d) not only are the not-UK realms relegated to second class status relative to the UK, but to every other country in the list, as well. The list consistently provides the flag and name of every country except when it comes to the "15 other states". Again, Andorra and France are both given full display and flags next to Giscard. The edit I first made on 18 November seemed, to me, to resolve all those issues in a way that at least provided no reason to object. It still "favoured" the UK by way of keeping it at the top of the sub-list (though, that also follows the established protocol for listing the reams), yet made the other realms no different to the UK or every other country in the larger list by way of showing their names and corresponding national flags; it is more consistent with the list as a whole. Additionally, it corrected the misinformation on the length of Elizabeth II's reign as queen of 12 of the realms. One editor stated my change did not recognise the countries Elizabeth II formerly reigned as queen of. However, the present iteration of the list doesn't, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DerbyCountyinNZSummary of dispute by KilluminatorThe cause of this dispute is the perceived bias in favor of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not only in the UK, but also for many other countries. These countries (Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc.) were completely omitted. Since the numbers of countries is over a dozen, some contributors are in favor of simply stating that she rules the UK + these other countries and some contributors wish to enumerate them claiming bias. Many users agree that the Queen is mostly associated with the UK (she lives in the UK, she's British etc.) and claim that giving same weight to other countries is not necessary and that this bias does not exist. I took a look at the UN website to see how they address the Queen. She is mainly referred to as the the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States which prompts me to believe that this is an adopted norm in international relations. In many ways , my stance is similar to that of user GoodDay so I will avoid redundancy. --Killuminator (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First round of statements1st statement by volunteer moderatorGreetings everyone. I've looked extensively at all the summaries and evidence provided and it isn't clear to me how to proceed at this stage. I've done a little bit of research, and I am aware one user raised a concern about only the British flag being displayed if we go with 'United Kingdom and 15 other states'. There is in fact a Commonwealth Flag, and it seems to me that another possible solution would be to place the Commonwealth Flag there and state that she is the queen of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Commonwealth, as it is more commonly know, and to link to the Commonwealth of Nations page where a user can view all member states. I just thought I would add that to the list of possible solutions. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by MiesianiacalThanks for taking this on. (You may deserve a bravery commendation at the end of this.) As others have noted already, Elizabeth II is monarch of only 16 of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. So, neither the Commonwealth Flag nor Elizabeth's personal flag would apply in the context we're focused on. The problem of the British flag also is one that stems from the existence of another problem: the UK being named and the remaining Commonwealth realms being lumped into "15 other states". Even if there were a solution to the flag issue, the pro-UK bias in that row and the inconsistency in the overall list (which itself includes a double-standard; see the entry for Giscard) would remain if the wording "United Kingdom and 15 other states" were unaltered. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue of removing all the flags is a red herring; it's drawing focus away from the other problems with Elizabeth II line of the list as is. As I noted above, the flag problem is really just the result of the existence of another problem: the random highlighting of the UK (which itself leads to inaccuracy and inconsistency in the list). Keeping in or taking away the flags won't resolve the latter issues. Additionally, the drop-down idea, as executed, did not resolve those problems, either. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by GoodDayThe Commonwealth of Nations proposal, is unacceptable. Most of the 53 member states are republics & so don't have Elizabeth II as a monarch or as their head of state. There's also monarchy members (example:Swaziland) which don't have Elizabeth II as their monarch or head of state. Per WP:WEIGHT (via international recognition) it would be best to go with Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms or Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other states. We can also add the 16 former states. Also, because of the above, the Commonwealth of Nations flag, would also be unadvisable. The Union Jack would suffice at that article. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Removal of all flags from the article, would solve part of the dispute. They're decorative, but I believe un-necessary if they're going to cause such commotion. This shouldn't be a huge move, as the flags were only added earlier this month. PS- Besides, country flags are better suited for sports articles, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by Neve-selbertI have just attempted another effort at resolving this dispute—to some extent, at least. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by KilluminatorThe Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. The article in question deals with leaders of states (even defunct states). I think our first step should be to establish whether the discrimination exists at all before we approach proposing alternative models. The current and disputed formulation goes along this line United Kingdom and 15 other states. Is this a discriminatory formulation ? --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by Qexigator (involved topic editor)May I intervene with the comment made at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders[1] "In my opinion, listing all the realms of which Elizabeth is queen is correct, in the way Mies. proposed. It is not undue. It is true to the uniqueness of her position. If there are others in a similar position in respect of one or more states, they too should have multiple entries. There is no established criteria for selecting one out of the many, and there is no need for Wikipedia to make some up. Its only a list! There is no good reason for leaving out the sublist for naming the other independent realms whose monarch is Elizabeth. Compare with the Timetable at Perth Agreement, which contains a sublist for all six states of Australia." Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
+ The hidden flag lists [5] well illustrate the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been introduced recently to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. It would be better to have no flags hidden or not. Further, if the flags are retained, there is no point in naming the 16 former states (again recently introduced), whether flagged or not. The words and links in the second column of the previous version suffice : United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)I know this will be viewed as unhelpfull, but how about two lists: one actual heads of state the other symbolic heads of state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Second round of statements2nd statement by volunteer moderatorSo at this point we have two main avenues which we can go down, with some smaller details to work out along the way. The first is to say 'United Kingdom and 15 other states' or something along those lines, and that could be seen as sensible, and listing all 15 and possibly all 16 former would get very long and possibly unnecessary. As for selection of the United Kingdom for the mention, perhaps it could be seen as biased, but not really as 'random'. In all honesty, if anyone thinks Queen Elizabeth they think Queen of England (incorrect, I know) or Queen of the UK. She predominately resides there and everything. If we were to randomly select one of her countries and it weren't the UK, casual readers may get confused. The other option we've discussed would be to list them all. That is consistent with the others, yes, but also very long. It may not look too ridiculous but in my honest opinion its a little excessive. I guess it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. Do they just want to know who the oldest living state leaders are, or do they want to know all 16 countries they lead? Perhaps they do want to know that. Undoubtedly many won't. We'd need to work out how we are going to do that. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 2nd statement by MiesianiacalIt seems two matters are being forgotten: 1) Having "Queen (1952-present)" adjacent to "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" communicates a falsehood. 2) Listing the countries one person was simultaneously head of while clumping all but one of the countries another person is simultaneously head of into "other states" below and apart from the one named country is a double standard. Using length as a justification appears random: where the list becomes too long has not been made clear, let alone the rationale for why the line between long enough and too long sits there. The list as a whole contains 101 countries. Why is that an okay number, but 16 is too many? Or 32? Or 117 or 133, taking the entire list into consideration? If length is of such concern, why not save space by applying the same logic to Giscard's line and there use "France and one other state" and the list is cut down to 100 countries? The country column is there to impart what country or countries each person was or is leader of (not to put across some notion of what country a person lived or lives mostly in or even is or was most associated with). Thus, the list is simply as long as its number of relevant entries. In addition to what I've mentioned above, as well as the misleading impression the UK has some special importance above the "15 other states", cutting certain entries the way they have been is a disservice to readers simply because it hides information; any unfamiliar reader won't realise Jamaica is a country that has one of the world's oldest living state leaders as its queen or will see The Gambia has Dawda Jawara as a former president who's among the world's oldest living state leaders, but also had Elizabeth II, as well. "It's too long" is a subjective statement that doesn't even hold up all that well. Even if it did, it wouldn't outweigh the fact listing the countries is the clearest and most neutral, accurate, and consistent way to present the information the list is intended to present. I initially thought "The Commonwealth realms" adjacent to Elizabeth II was the best solution; it is unbiased and concise. I now see it creates the same inconsistency and hides information pertinent to the list as much as "United Kingdom and 15 other states" does. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC) If the list were only about ranking the named persons in descending order of longevity, there would be no column for countries. Clearly countries are a key part of the list, whether with flags or not. WP:UNDUE is not relevant; the list is not about what country the leader is most associated with, nor is Elizabeth II being monarch of Australia, Papua New Guinea, or any other Commonwealth realm a viewpoint, let alone a minority one. It is a fact and, given that, it cannot be argued a full list of realms gives undue prominence to any minority opinion. Regardless, a full list of Commonwealth realms does not make Elizabeth II appear any less associated with the United Kingdom (especially if the UK is first on that list). Those who continue to point to WP:UNDUE and say nothing else either refuse to or cannot contend with the matters of inaccuracy (Elizabeth II did not become queen of all 16 realms in 1952) and the line for Giscard (the international community views Giscard first & foremost as the French president; yet, Andorra's name appears next to his). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC) To the first suggestion by Drcrazy102: "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", aside from the inherent bias, does not fit into the list as currently structured. The leader's name and the country/countries he or she heads or headed are in two separate columns. Additionally, the monarch of the UK is monarch only of the UK, not of 16 countries. One person acts as monarch of each country separately. To the second suggestion by Drcrazy102 (or possibly a clarification of the first): the words "monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column would result in a repetition of "monarch" or essentially its synonym "Queen" in the 'Position' column. Removing the misplaced redundancy would leave "16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column, which technically works and does not contain any bias favouring one country. It is akin to my aforementioned first change at the list to show "Commonwealth realms" in the 'State' column. However, it would still be an anomaly in the list. I may be willing to compromise by letting that particular matter go if this idea gains wide support. But, there still does exist the problem of what date(s) are shown in the 'Position' column. Perhaps simply "Queen" and the dates are in the footnote. I also wonder if there'd need to be some explanation for the inconsistent presentation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC) 2nd statement by QexigatorAgreed, it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. This is only a list, with links for further information if any reader is that interested. It is not about a supposed competitive rivalry between countries to get into the list, raising questions of "bias" or "double standard", but simply to rank the named persons in descending order of longevity. There was little problem before the flags appeared, and the list extended to include "former". Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC) + Agree with GoodDay, Drcrazy102's proposal is not the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC) 2nd statement by GoodDayWe must have the display as "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", per WP:Due and undue weight. The international community views Elizabeth II first & foremost as the British monarch. To display the list as "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland..."? would be attempting to 'right perceived wrongs', which is discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) One wonders, how will the next British monarch's coronation oath be worded. Will he (I say 'he', as the next 3 direct-in-line are male) have to mention all the Commonwealth realms by name? GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Drcrazy102's proposal is unworkable. Anything less then "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." would (IMHO) go against Wikipedia's Due and undue weight, as we've rarely seen (if at all) news headlines or heard newsreports like "Queen of the Bahamas visits Russia", or "St. Lucian monarch addresses the UN". It's quite obvious, that the international community views/describes Elizabeth II as being mostly associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC) 2nd statement by KilluminatorThe 16 states no longer headed by the Queen are unnecessary. The criteria for including leaders in this articles is their age, not the the duration of their rule, the number of states they headed, both currently existing ones and defunct states. The reader is here to find out who are the oldest living statesmen and will be more familiar with currently existing states. Adding more historical info is excessive for purposes of this article. In regards to the existing states, the average reader will associate the Queen with the UK first. It looks more like a customary thing (Even the UN keeps it short and uses the formulation Queen of the UK etc.) , rather than bias. --Killuminator (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion by Drcrazy102
References
Third round of statementsStatement by volunteer moderatorHello again, everyone. I've left this case idle for a few days as I wasn't entirely sure what to do, and waiting a few days gives the added benefit of everyone involved coming up with new ideas and possibly being able to see it from a different perspective. As the case stands, we haven't reached an accepted compromise at this stage and neither of the original wordings are supported by everyone. I would prefer if we can reach a decision within the next few rounds, otherwise the case may have to be failed. Let's see how things stand. When we finished the last round, we had two entirely different suggestions, both supported by one side and opposed by the other, with one additional suggestion rejected by all parties. At this stage we need to start thinking about reaching a solution. What can we write in the article which will provide sufficient information, is the best for the casual reader, and will generate some support from most sides here? Ultimately that's our goal, and I'm also interested to see what's changed over the past 3 or 4 days. JQTriple7 talk 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC) 3rd statement by MiesianiacalI am unable to devise any solution that satisfies more of the expressed concerns than listing all the countries openly (ie. not in a drop-down) and in the order used according to Commonwealth protocol. That:
The only remaining argument that is undeniable is: showing all the countries makes the list longer. I personally think that satisfying all of the above easily offsets the "drawback" of making the list longer (though, I also hold that isn't a valid drawback, since the list's length is arbitrary and no new figures are being added; it will still end at 100). However, if length really is that much of an issue to some, I can let go of consistency as a concern and entertain the possibility of a drop-down. However, I could not accept such dividing the Commonwealth realms into "classes" again. For me, either all countries would be in this hypothetical drop-down or none. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
3rd statement by GoodDayPer reasons I've already stated. My position on how to display the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms within the article? remains unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It's for these reasons, that I support using the United Kingdom and the 15 other... version. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC) AFAIK, there's still no consensus at the article for the proposed changes. Sooner or later, WP:STICK must come into play. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) @Tsavage:To the idea of notes. May I see a visual example of what's being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC) PS: The notes must adhere to WP:WEIGHT, meaning they must display as United Kingdom and 15 other.... Presenting the realms as 16 are equal, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Disagreement on how to display the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms in the article-in-question, appears to not have been resolved. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) AFAIK, there's still no consensus for the proposed changes at the article-in-question. At some point, the stick has to be dropped. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC) @Miesianiacal:As mentioned earlier, the notes idea will have to adhere to WP:WEIGHT & thus the "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." will be required. It can't be denied or ignored, how the world views Elizabeth II, nor that the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) @Miesianiacal:I'm awaiting a visual example of the notes proposal. If the proposal (in anyway) goes against WP:WEIGHT (Elizabeth II being associated the most with the UK) & the fact that the UK is unique among the realms? Then I shall have to oppose it. PS: That I've agreed to use "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", rather then just the "United Kingdom"? is my olive branch. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC) @Miesianiacal: - I prefer to allow the other involved parties to have their say on the notes proposal. I haven't a clue as to what it is you're asking of me. But, I would recommend you concentrate working something out with the other involved parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) @Miesianiacal: - I don't appreciate your demanding tone & feel you're bordering on personal attacks by suggesting 'obstinate', 'blocking a path', 'disruption'. I request a retraction, please. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC) @Miesianiacal: - I'm waiting to see a visual example of the notes proposal, as are you & the other involved participants. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your focusing on me, when there are other's involved in this case. Attempts to paint me as the 'logjam' here, isn't going to score any points. Indeed, this DRN case came about, because you were unable to get a consensus (at the article-in-question) for your proposed changes & you wouldn't accept that rejection. As I recall, you were a minority of one. It's been over 3 weeks now (since you tried to make those edits) & you're no farther ahead. Perhaps, it's time for you to let go. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Waiting for a visual example of the notes proposal. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) @Drcrazy102: If the others accept your Rfc proposal? then so will I. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC) @Drcrazy102: If we are gonna go to Rfc, then DerbyCountyinNZ & Neve-selbert shall be made aware of it, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC) 3rd statement by KilluminatorI would be willing to accept all of these countries if the editors can procure a solution that doesn't make the article too bloated. --Killuminator (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by an uninvolved editor: TsavageAs a last ditch DR proposal, if involved editors are actually willing to compromise, please consider that the addition of a Notes column may acceptable to all:
QEII Notes can thus contain the entire list, perhaps in tiny type, or, possibly more consistent with space-saving conventions, it can simply provide a few words of comprehensive explanation tied to a footnote with the full list (or even to a dedicated section of the page), such as: "QEII is primarily associated with the UK; she is also..." and in this way fully address all of the stated concerns in this DR case. In addition, two appeals to common sense (which Wikipedia repeatedly advises us to use): (1) QEII's leadership status is mainly ceremonial, whereas a list of "state leaders" may suggest that actual day-to-day working leaders are being considered - presenting QEII's numerous states too prominently, while being factually correct, could in some way overstate the case of her leadership, compared to the majority of others on the list; (2) it is a fact that QEII is primarily commonly associated with the UK (e.g. in official documents, in the media), therefore, her other states are by that definition, secondary, and that is a fact-based delineation that is useful when abbreviation may be required. As a final point to consider, this is a "list of 100 oldest state leaders," and not a "list of X number of states with the oldest leaders," therefore, if all leaders are present, even as, somehow, not all associated states are listed, the list would still be valid (while the list of states with the oldest leaders would not be). --Tsavage (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Miesianiacal: Thanks for the reply. I think in this case, you might want to accept a Notes column and see if other parties will as well, because as far as compromises, it is probably as far as things will go. --Tsavage (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Miesianiacal, GoodDay: Concern over the listing order is central to this dispute, and at this point, it also seems to be where a pivotal concession must be made. We have no ultimate content authority to make determinations in disputes, what we have is our consensus process, which ultimately relies on evaluating reliable sources. Miesianiacal, your criteria listed at 01:48, 8 December 2015 are all reasonable, as are the points listed by GoodDay at 03:09, 8 December 2015. The lists contain verifiable facts, and common sense reasoning, unfortunately, they are overall mutually exclusive. To break this deadlock, ideally, we would turn to a definitive source that actually illustrates listing language and order. IMO, I find such a source at the official site of the British Monarchy, where the Queen's realms are described as follows:
This I think we can agree is a highest quality source for the British Monarchy, and the wording is clear and unambiguous. Regardless of additional and valid arguments that may be made for other forms of listing, based on our policy of verifiability, we can verify this to be a correct and accurate form. To counter this finding, we would need an equally reliable source to argue that it is incorrect, and from what I've observed here, I don't believe such a source can be found. Therefore, we should settle on a listing derived from this, as it can be directly adapted for abbreviation. A Notes column is superior to a drop-down list (which is usually a bad design choices, for accessiblity reasons, across devices, browsers, printings, and for hiding information). Notes content is presented in a uniform, upfront, easily accessible way. The appearance would simply be that of an additional column, at reasonable width. As I suggested, Notes could include the entire list of 15 additional states, in smaller type, or there could be explanatory text and a link to a footnoted state list (the footnote could be manually placed at the bottom of the table, as opposed to in References, so that it would appear as part of the table). These are suggestions. A Notes column gives options to better address exceptions such as QEII (and it would make sense that d'Estaing should be treated this way as well). Miesianiacal, your concern for equal display of all of QEII's realms has merit in general, however, in this particular application, the subject is state leaders, not states, and when the challenge is made that each leader should (essentially) be given equal weight, rather than giving greater (visual) weight to leaders with multiple states, equal leader space should take precedence for this article about leaders. I believe this is as far as DRN can go, in helping to work out a compromise. If editors agree to a resolution such as this, good suggestions from all positions will be incorporated, and the article should therefore be net improved. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Miesianiacal, GoodDay, Drcrazy102: The Notes suggestion, for a new column, is simply that, a new column. It is not hard to visualize: look at a column on the table, say, the "Living as of" column, and imagine the header reads "Notes" instead, and the column is a little wider. To create a working example, just copy and paste some of the code - header and a few lines of entry - the new column could go last, or just before Living as of, that's up to the group! I think this is a good alternative, and interested editors should explore it (technically, it's quite trivial to implement). --Tsavage (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Miesianiacal: There is no question with your points of fact about the Queen and her realms, and in this light, your argument for equal presentation of all 16 realms is reasonable. Your position therefore is not wrong, however, in the context of the article in question, your argument is less right than other, opposing arguments. This is not hard to demonstrate, and has been done already:
This I believe is a fair and definitive summary of the situation, and unless you can produce an equally authoritative source to indicate that a statement of the general form, "Queen of UK and 15 other states" is definitively incorrect or broadly offensive or otherwise problematic, then your position, while not incorrect, is also not an absolute, and does not have any particular policy support over abbreviation. IMO, it is up to you to make a significant concession for DRN to progress, and in order for you to do that, you must accept the overall context in addition to your scholarly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit§ion=29view of the content alone. The Notes column (perhaps combined with a local footnote at the bottom of the table) will present all of the realms explicitly listed on the table. That, I think, is a compromise that improves the value of the table. (I'll reply to any comments, otherwise, this for me is extent of my reasonable moderation effort. Thank you. :) --Tsavage (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Miesianiacal: Please remember, arguing with me and arguing against the common ground points I am proposing, in the role of a moderating/mediating party, are two different things, and they are not mutually compatible (if there is no confidence in the moderation effort in a volunteer participation situation, there is no value). In any case, I will reply to your last comment, however, you don't appear to be engaging with the points I'm making. Essentially, to restate in another way, you are conflating being right in a scholarly sense, and what is right (required) by Wikipedia in order to publish content. Standards have been adequately met to present an abbreviated form of the list of realms, mentioning the UK, while not specifically mentioning the others. This is so because, by our sourcing guidelines and the ultimate policy requirement for verifiability, we can support this approach with evidence. You have not presented evidence - equally reliable sources - to argue anything contrary, such as that mentioning all or none is the only acceptable way to present this information (regardless of whether QEII is equally the monarch of all realms). This has already been argued. Your last comment brings up one additional point, however, that I will address, as it argues against the common ground I have been trying to establish. You say:
The central point here remains: this article is about state leaders, not states, and when looking for information, we should turn to reputable sources about those leaders. For QEII, we can turn to the official site of the British monarchy, because that is where her origins lie. So we go to a reputable source for that subject, and find a clear presentation of an acceptable listing form - "There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK: [list of 15 countries]" - and, absent of countering evidence, that is all we need to add that information about the subject in this context. Although everything around here can be argued endlessly (almost literally), as far as trying to resolve this dispute at DRN, we appear to have clearly met Wikipedia's core policy standards for a particular content presentation format. Whether the 15 other realms are listed somewhere in the table, or at the far end of a link, seems to be the compromise open here. (Giving 16 lines to one leader has already been discussed.) If you agree to the Notes proposal, should it meet tentative approval all around, I will help create an example if needed (I suggest the content is more important than the format, and should be worked out). Otherwise, unless other parties have replies, my input as far as the relative merits of both main positions is complete. --Tsavage (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Comments to Tsavage
Closing statement by Tsavage (uninvolved/volunteer moderator)There has been no activity for nearly 48 hours in a long-running case, so I will offer this case summary from my view:
At this point, thanking everyone, I would consider this case Failed and suggest that parties either create an RfC (perhaps with the assistance offered here), or simply do no more, keeping in mind that there is what appears to be a straightforward, evidence- and policy-based argument to support reversion of unsupported changes along these lines, should they be made at the article. --Tsavage (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Misc. Case notesDRN coordinator's note: Cases at DRN generally have a 2-week life span and this case is now a couple of days beyond that. If any 24-hour period passes in which there is no edit to this section, our archiving bot will archive and, in effect, auto-close this case. The DRN volunteer in charge may extend the life of this case by advancing the do-not-archive-until date in the case header (visible only in edit mode), but should not do so unless substantial and continuous progress is being made towards resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk: David Lisak
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Two of the three parties did not respond within the time frame allotted, or within an extended grace period. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The article is not controversial, but it includes a report of a significant controversy about the subject of the article. I added a concise description of the controversy. Another editor (Rosceles) deleted this description without prior notice or talk and also removed anything else that could be negative toward the subject of the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I made various changes responding to that editor's objections, but he repeatedly deleted/reverted. There has been much discussion among editors on the Talk page, via 3O, the Reliable Sources noticeboard, etc. Probably ten editors have weighed in, but no resolution is in sight. How do you think we can help? If sufficient consensus builds for not censoring the article, then mediation might not be necessary. If it is necessary, a consensus or lack thereof could be helpful. Summary of dispute by JvpwikiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The article "David Lisak" is not controversial in itself, but it includes a report of a significant controversy about the subject of the article, originating from academic and scholarly sources. I added a concise description of the controversy, citing those sources. Another editor (Rosceles) deleted this description without prior notice or talk and also removed anything else that could be considered negative toward the subject of the article. I have no POV other than to present a full account of the subject of the article. The controversy section I added necessarily repeats some material from the Research sections; I placed the controversy after all of the research information to give it less weight, hoping to mollify Rosceles. The first complaint from Rosceles was that the controversy should not be mentioned, and accordingly Rosceles deleted the entire controversy section, which included material from the original article prior to my addition. The next complaint was that nothing significant can be added without first developing a broad consensus. The next was that the sources cited are insufficient and the controversy concerning the subject's work is given undue weight. He then accused me of fraudulently convincing the editor responding to the 3O request to endorse my position. Throughout the interchange I made adjustments hoping to mollify Rosceles, who has been uniformly condescending, contemptuous, and accusatory in response. After the first deletion, I restored the deleted section, which led to a minor edit war; when it was clear no resolution was in sight, I referred to 3O and then to this noticeboard. Rosceles referred to the noticeboard about sources, and I responded to that. Along the way several editors have commented on the controversy, first in the article's talk page well before my addition, and subsequently there and in response to the 3O request and on the noticeboard. I can notify the other editors who have expressed opinions so far to let them know that this dispute is under DR review, although I think only Rosceles and I are really involved as disputants (as opposed to mediators or third-party commentators). I would like to restore the deleted material while this is resolved but I want to avoid the appearance of edit warring. I would appreciate any suggestions to resolve this without censoring the article. JCvP 07:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs) Summary of dispute by RoscelesePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jvpwiki has repeatedly attempted to add a large section claiming "controversy" about the subject of a biographical article. This section comes to over one quarter of the total article length and relies on a single, unreliable source. Jvpwiki also declined to seek consensus for his new additions when asked to do so. I explained to him that without reliable sources, it is impossible to document the existence of a "controversy", and that either way it violated due weight, but he evidently views this as "censoring". I'll also note that Jvpwiki only filed this DR request after consensus started to build against his edits at the RSN discussion, which seems like some subtle forum-shopping. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ricky81682The issue is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight more than anything. Jvpwiki's version here includes an entire "Controversy Over Research Methods" based entirely on two pieces from Reason foundation. The vast majority of the text cites nothing actually (other than vague allegation that Reason has articles quoting someone about Lisak), making it a giant dual BLP problem. Roscelese's description at RSN of Reason as "opposed to anti-rape activism" wasn't helpful to me. As I noted at RSN, the main sourcing is related to this piece more over how Lisak personally responded to a request for an interview than anything approaching actual an academic dispute. I revised the page to put in the reporter's name and moved that language down. Otherwise I noted that quoting Mary P. Koss would be appropriate (even if the quote is via Reason) but currently vague hand-waving allegations that there exists Reason articles quoting Koss attacking Lisak is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Talk: David LisakPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First round of statements1st statement by volunteer moderatorI've been looking over the articles where the dispute is located for the last few days, and it's certainly a lot of material to cover and I may not still understand all the issues here. I have looked at the contributions of JCvP and Roscelese and would like to remind everyone that you are both users in good standing with considerable activities on Wikipedia, and I thank you both for your dedication. Considering this, there should be no reason to quickly jump to conclusions on motives or interpreting the background of each other. As regular Wikipedia users, we should all be familiar with WP: Goodfaith. The motives for edits are not important. We focus on the edits themselves, on community building, and finding consensus between each other. There was definitely room to mention a snippet of controversy, but the size of the mention in the edit was definitely excessive, taking up about a quarter of the page, even if it was at the bottom of the page. We have to be very careful about biographies of living persons. See: WP:BLP. That takes us to the fact that the singular source is from a minority political magazine with a relatively small readership. The news article therein is not written by and does not contain quotes from peers of David Lisak, but college officials. That doesn't discount inclusion in the article, but should certainly be stated when wording any such mention. I would like to point out to JCvP, you must be the one to establish consensus for including disputed sources in the article. See: WP: Onus. All of this considered, I'd like us to discuss whether there should be awareness in the article of the contention between these college professionals and David Lisak, or if there is any peer mention of these views. It would be very helpful if alternate sources could be found on this topic, instead of being so hard-set on including the disputed information with just one source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC) 1st statement by Jvpwiki1st statement by Roscelese1st statement by Ricky81682I'll agree with the moderator's remarks (I'm not sure I'm really an proponent or opponent of including the text) but I do note that the page has been revised yet again by another editor. I don't see the evidence for a criticism section, namely that his work has "generated a number of criticism" based on a single study in response about a single paper of Lisak's and again the vague "Reason has printed a number of article criticizing Lisak" now based on a New York Magazine article which itself links to two Reason blog pieces. All the sources (even the HP) are discussing a single paper of Lisak's and it would be more prudent to first identify that paper as the concern and to note more than "Lisak stands by his work" and instead to note the academic dispute over the study itself is at issue here. It seems like Misc. Case notes
|
Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | We are at a deadlock as to whether the use of the word "extraordinary" in the voice of Wikipedia is encyclopedic and consistent with neutral point of view. A Request for Comments is the suggested next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I removed the term "extraordinary" from the lead "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records..." Later in the article there are two more paragraphs (in a five paragraph article) entirely on skepticism about the top speed claims, so removing that term will not affect the readers' ability to make up their own minds regarding the validity of the top speed claim, nor the media reception to that claim. My opinion is that it is original research to call the claim extraordinary, it isn't based on the sources given, it gives undue weight to the lead (of an already biased article) and the term is a peacock term. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I removed the term This was reverted. I discussed on the article talk page, and was met with original research, not sources or facts. I requested a third opinion and the third opinion was the the term was not supported by sources, was original research, and should be removed as per WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so I removed it, this was reverted and the other editor has rejected the 3rd opinion.
How do you think we can help? Clarification regarding the suitability of the term "extraordinary" in the lead of this article. Specifically regarding NPOV, OR, UNDUE, PEACOCK. Summary of dispute by Dennis BratlandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be opening this case for discussion. Here are a few ground rules. I will check on the case at least every 24 hours. Each editor is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours, or I may close it due to lack of participation. Comment on content only, not on contributors, and be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and excessively lengthy posts do not help. Please do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Please discuss the article here rather than at the talk page to keep things centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issue is? Does the issue have to do with the word "extraordinary"? If so, why should or should not that word be used in the voice of Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
First statements by editorsI am the editor trying to remove the word "extraordinary" from the lead of the article. The article is about a vehicle that was announced with a very high top speed claim. This claim has never been verified and sources have stated that the claim is unrealistic. I have stated that the top speed claim and the claims of it being unrealistic are notable and should be included. I have also stated that the following sentence (in the lead) is in violation of NPOV, OR and UNDUE - "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records, and the Tomahawk never demonstrated a speed above 100 mph (160 km/h)." "extraordinary" and (possibly) "derided" are not neutral terms, neither are they supported by sources. The use of them is OR by the other editor involved and they certainly do not belong in the lead. The other editor involved seems to think that this is an attempt to state that the top speed claim is accurate. This is not correct, every editor commenting on this dispute is aware that the top speed claim is unrealistic and is not trying to hide this fact. It's just a desire to have a neutral article, using neutral terms and in particular a neutral lead for the article. At the moment about 80% of the article is devoted to the fact that the top speed claims are disputed. A third part opinion was requested, and supported the claim that the term "extraordinary" should be removed due to NPOV and OR - this suggestion was ignored by the other editor. A replacement sentence for the lead - "The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle, introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle, built around a 500hp Viper sports car engine, was described by Dodge as a "rolling sculpture." The original claim of a theoretical top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) has not been tested." has been suggested by an uninvolved third party, and rejected. A neutral article that states the facts, without opinions that allows the readers to absorb the facts and come to their own conclusions would be great! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by volunteer moderatorThe question isn't whether the claimed top speed of 300+ mph is extraordinary or outlandish. The question is whether that statement can be made in the voice of Wikipedia. Is User:Dennis Bratland willing to remove the word from the lede sentence in the voice of Wikipedia and discuss the speed claims, with quotes, in the article body? Does using such wording in the voice of Wikipedia constitute original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Are the editors willing to agree to using a Request for Comments on whether to keep or remove the word "extraordinary" from the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Second statements by editorsOf course, I am willing to use whatever procedure resolves this issues as easily as possible, and will abide by the conclusion. This should be a simple issue, and I'm surprised that it has gone this far, in the case of something that seems very against general wikipedia consensus. Do I really have to state this again? I don't wish to put in any content that implies in any way that the top speed claim is accurate. I am in favor of a section within the article that gives reliable, sourced content explaining that the top speed claim has never been proven and reliable sources have stated that it is highly optimistic. These are neutral comments and require no original research. I am however, against the wording of the current article, as it is OR and does not reflect a NPOV, I am also against the amount of content regarding the top speed issue, it deserves two or three neutrally worded lines only and perhaps these should not be in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorFirst, is anyone claiming that the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of the speeds that it was advertised as being capable of? If not, then we don't need to discuss that. The issue is the wording of the lede sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Second, are the editors willing to agree to compromise language, such as "controversial" or "questioned", which are more encyclopedic than making a judgment in Wikipedia's voice that the claim was extraordinary or outlandish or absurd? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Third, in articles on subjects that are normally considered pseudoscience, Wikipedia does not state that astrology is pseudo-science. It states that astrology is considered pseudo-science by the scientific community. There is a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Fourth, if the argument about making a judgment in the voice of Wikipedia, rather than attributing it, continues without resolution, I may have to fail this thread (but will still assist in an RFC if desired). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Third statements by editorsHow can we call it "controversial"? A controversy is defined as a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." A controversy requires two parties who disagree. Who is the other party in the controversy? I see a one sided public uproar: Dodge said a stupid thing, and the press responded with a chorus of "Pants on fire" on the Truth-O-Meter, three thousand Pinocchios. That is not a controversy. A false claim was made, and thoroughly refuted.Numerous sources were cited showing that experts did "mock" "deride" "lampoon" "roast" this corporation for making such a silly statement. Saying they "questioned" it is inaccurate; they buried it, so we need language that accurate reflects that. Letting readers think there is some group of reasonable people anywhere in the world who think 300+ mph is possible is what I have a problem with. We need to tell the truth: no reputable, informed source thinks this is remotely possible. I'm not OK with truthiness being given respect by Wikipedia's false pretense of neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
|
Talk:Jesus
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as no dispute. I've looked at the RFC results and discussion and feel that there was a moderate-to-strong consensus there that the Gospel section should go first. In light of that, there is no dispute as the matter is resolved by the RFC. That does not mean that editors who disagree with it may not continue to seek a new consensus through discussion at the talk page, though they should take care not to become tendentious. If those opposing this result question my evaluation of the consensus, I'd recommend that they seek a consensus evaluation through AN. Finally, even if I had not closed this for this reason, I would have closed it as being stale since no DRN volunteer has chosen to take the case after being listed several days. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The Jesus page includes a section on the canonical Gospels. It is the most prominent section, both the longest and the first. Mostly it summaries the Gospels with reference to the Gospels as primary sources. Scholarly opinion on the content is mostly reserved to the introduction. The Gospels section follows the Christian canon rather than focusing on the three Gospels that historians regard as historically informative. RSs do not summarize the Gospels when describing Jesus. RSs also favor the historical view and put it before a description of Christian beliefs about Jesus. Several editors are strongly in favor of the Gospels section even though it doesn't represent the topic the way RSs do. Over the years, several suggestions have been made to bring the page better in line with RSs. The historical section could go first. The Gospels section could be much smaller. But certain editors are vocally in favor of keeping the Gospels section large and first. Since October, I have tried to use policies and RSs to show that we should change the page. Editors opposed to the idea say that RSs don't apply to this issue, and neither do facts or WP policies. It's a matter of preference, they say. Having gotten nowhere by appealing to the current editors on the Talk page, I put a POV tag on the section to draw more attention to the issue, but it was removed. I tried an Undue Weight tag on the section, but it was also removed. The issues are: Is there a dispute underway? What sort of dispute is it (POV, Undue Weight, RS)? Is a dispute tag appropriate? Should we follow WP policies and RSs when deciding what to do with the Gospels section? Does our Gospels section give more predominance to the Gospel view than RSs give to that view? Does our Gospels section give undue weight to the Gospel view of who Jesus was? How can we make the page match RSs better? Have you tried to resolve this previously? RfC on whether to put the historical section first. NPOV noticeboard. POV & Undue Weight tag (both removed). How do you think we can help? Putting an Undue Weight tag on the section would help. That alone would be progress. Someone could tell the editors on the Talk:Jesus page whether we should make our decisions based on our own best judgments or according to WP policies and RSs. If the opinions of editors are meant to override polices and RSs, then I have no case and I can give up. If policies and RSs are to be favored over editor opinions, then ideally the editors who say otherwise will work with me to improve the page. Summary of dispute by LittleJerryJohn Tweet has a problem with the gospel section on the Jesus article. He thinks that a section that details how the gospels portray Jesus is POV and UNDUE. The RS's he keeps citing is a Britannia article by E. P. Sanders which does not prove his point (as Sander's extensively talks about the gospel portrayals) and a "Encyclopedia of World Biography" entry which also recites the gospel accounts. It has been explained to him by several editors why the section is not UNDUE but instead of addressing these points, he simply dismisses them as "opinions" and demands "evidence". The gospels are the primary sources for information on Jesus and critical scholars turn to them to reconstruct a historical Jesus. This is a fact. In addition, even if scholars don't find a text useful for history there is still extensive scholarly attention given to how it portrays Jesus. LittleJerry (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by StAnselmPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is not the appropriate forum to discuss the issue, since it is really a user issue rather than a content one. Jonathan Tweet started an RfC in which the consensus was strongly against him; that he has come here with the same issue constitutes a blatant example of WP:IDHT. There is also the heckling mentioned by another editor, and Tweet's appeal to "reliable sources", which he later admitted to not having read. I for one am not willing to carry out a dispute resolution here. (And I'm sorry that I've commented on editors here, but that is essential background for understanding the case.) StAnselm (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JohnbodPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Tweet made a proposal which was massively rejected by the few editors who can still be bothered to follow the page, which has been dominated by his verbose contributionsfor over a year now - from the history:
Several people explained why his proposal was not a good idea, being relentlessly heckled by Tweet the while, but he took none of this in. That's not to say there isn't a problem over the issue, which there is. I rarely edit the article, except for the images, and try to avoid getting into discussions on the talk page, but this example seems somewhat typical. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BardoligneoUser Jonathan Tweet wanted to move the "Historical views" section before the "Gospel narrative" section in Jesus article. He opened (succesively) four related discussions, including a RFC, on the talk page to try and gain consensus to do that. His motivation to swap the sections is that reliable sources (other online encyclopedias) do that and this is evidence that we should do the same. He also considers having a Gospel narrative section an undue weight given to the Christian viewpoint and wanted to tag the section POV accordingly. Other editors mostly disagreed, with the RFC too, on various basis, in particular that: While we have to use RSs for sourcing the content, we're not obliged to follow the same structure or layout of the article (LittleJerry,STAnselm, me) and if anything it's probably better to mantain a layout similar to other WP pages. The Gospel narrative is functional to the historical discussion and should logically come first. (users Stevestrummer, StAnselm, Mangoe, Johnbod and others. My idea was: think of possible readers that could lack even a basic picture of the events/places/stories that the historians discuss). It's kind of a standard WP approach to exposition is to convey the most commonly known info on a topic and then move on to more specialized treatment. (SteveStrummer) It's not clear if other encyclopedias really follow a historical - Gospels account order: in some cases the 2 are quite merged and interweaved or they even seem quite similar in structure to the actual WP article (Johnbod, LittleJerry); so that isn't evidence that we should swap the 2 sections. A user (Pete) agreed with Jonathan Tweet on the basis that we should give a historical analysis without needing to rely on the gospels which are a Christian, partisan account. edit: I see that the overview given by Jonathan Tweet here regards other points too (Gospel section too large): I agreed with this one on the TP, I think it could be synthesized. For instance, there's no particular need to bullet-point (or cite in other ways) each time each one of the four gospels in the Jesus article and some finer details could be left out. After all, there's a different more specific page (life of Jesus in the New Testament). Bardoligneo (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JeppizI don't really have an interest in this, but will comment as I was named. My main view is that the relatively small issue of which topic goes before the other one has seen way too much time spent by several good editors who could contribute in a more useful way. The long discussions at the talk page are already exaggerated, and even more so bringing it here. If other users find it interesting they are welcome to continue debating it, but I won't take part. Wishing you all a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Talk:Jesus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Catherine of_Siena#Foreskin_claims
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | One editor has failed to respond within the given time frame. Editor(s) may consider the recommendations made here if editor(s) fail to discuss. This case is closed with no objection of being refiled. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Nancy Kominsky
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. This might also be a good case for a request for full page protection if the non-discussing editor continues to revert. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#An_Poblacht_as_reliable_source.3F.3F
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close for three reasons. First, the filing party hasn't listed any other editors or notified them. Second, the discussion was about a month ago. Third, the filing party doesn't appear to be requesting dispute resolution about an article, but to re-open a question about whether a particular source is considered reliable, which is in the scope of WP:RSN, which failed to resolve the issue, but isn't in the scope of this board. I suggest that the question of whether the source is reliable would be better addressed by a properly publicized Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Kriyananda
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Editors did not provide summary of their positions in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Trustpilot#Lede
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close. Not all of the parties who have been discussing on the article talk page have been listed. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to list and notify all of the editors. The filing party may refile after listing and notifying all of the editors who have been taking part in the discussion. If this case is refiled properly, I will not be acting as moderator because I provided a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:London Action_Resource_Centre#2015_edits.2C_improving_the_page
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close: the parties have not extensively discussed the issue on a talk page. There have only been four relatively short posts, three of which are from November. Please discuss the issue extensively on the talk page. If parties do not contribute to the discussion on the talk page, Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss may be a helpful read. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 19:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Mudar Zahran
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closing due to lack of response. If editors want to resolve this dispute, an RFC is one option. Edit-warring, which was tried previously, is not an acceptable option, and may be reported at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. All editors are advised that discussion of content disputes, including removal of material citing BLP, is not optional in Wikipedia. Content disputes must be discussed rather than addressed by edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Several edit wars were taking place in this article in relation to three 'paragraphs'. The paragraphs are completely sourced from several sources including one of the most reliable news agencies in Jordan; Ammon News. There are the three paragraphs in which some users are protesting against their inclusion (shown in talk page), using BLP guidelines as an excuse. However, it doesn't violate BLP guidelines or any relevant wikipedia guidelines. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dispute underwent a lengthy discussion at the article's talk page How do you think we can help? Check validity of the concerns of involved users Summary of dispute by SmartsePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
For background see COIN, BLPN and the talk page. The dispute relates to how BLP is interpreted in relation to the quality of sourcing and whether we should repeat rumours and accusations that he is a Mossad agent. My view, and which I feel is supported by both policy and the pervailing consensus within the community is that we should be cautious and insist on only including controversial information if it is solidly sourced and even more so when the subject has raised concerns about content. I have explained at length on the talk page what I feel is problematic with the content that Makeandtoss would like to include and suggested possible wordings that could be used, but they seem unwilling to offer any compromise. My attempts to get other editors to take a look haven't produced a particularly strong consensus against excluding all of the content, but there most certainly wasn't consensus to make this edit yesterday which is why I reverted. I'd welcome more editors examining the content and sourcing. SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Mudar Zahran discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by volunteer moderatorI will be opening this case as volunteer moderator on a temporary basis, although I am requesting that another volunteer take it over shortly. Here are my ground rules (and a replacement may change them in detail, but most of them are standard). I will check on this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to check on this case every 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and lengthy posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not discuss the article on its talk page, because this is the place for discussion until the case is resolved. Will each editor please summarize briefly what they think the content issues are? What needs to be changed in the article, or what needs to be left alone that other editors want to change? Discuss the article content only. Thank you. Robert McClenon, 19:43 19 December 2015 First statements by editorsMakeandtossSome editors have been removing completely sourced content on basis of BLP guidelines violations, which doesn't seem to be the case. The content in the form of points, can be seen above...Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorOne editor says that other editors have been removing completely sourced content on the basis of BLP violations. Please be more specific, because occasionally BLP policy really may authorize the removal of sourced content (depending largely on the sources but also the content). Other editors have not commented. Will the other editors explain what their policy reason is for removing content, or otherwise explain what the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Second statements by editorsThird statement by moderatorIs there a reason why editors won't reply to my requests for concise civil summaries of the issue? If so, what is the reason? There are four editors listed in this case, one of whom has made a statement that is concise but not complete, and I requested details. One editor made an initial statement before I opened the case. Two other editors have been silent. If you want dispute resolution, please reply. If you don't want dispute resolution, you may request to withdraw from it. Please try to help me and the community clarify the issues. I don't think that I am asking a lot, compared to being asked to resolve a dispute in which no one wants to say what the dispute is. If no one wants to discuss, it is true that a Request for Comments is possible, and might be a better option, since no one wants to discus. However, if we discuss at least briefly, we can improve the likelihood of the RFC being neutral and therefore likely to succeed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Third statements by editorsMakeandtossHonestly, I don't even know what is the problem with the content. Since @Smartse: is not answering, I will give his view points. When he reverted me he said "There's no consensus to include this" and on his last statement on the talk page said "BLP content is held to a higher standard than other content and we have to get it right." There are 5 days left before the protection on article ends, I hope this gets resolved by then, before disaster strikes AKA edit wars.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC) References
|
Gebel el-Silsila
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close for three reasons. First, the other editor hasn't been notified of this filing. Second, this case, as filed, was very badly malformed. I have tried to correct this, but have done enough work correcting this filing so that I don't feel like notifying the other editor. Third, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but it wasn't about article content. My advice is to discuss article content on the article talk page. If there is discussion on the talk page but it doesn't resolve the content issues, the editors may refile here without prejudice. Persistent incivility may be reported at WP:ANI. Closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Procedural close as incompletely filed. There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The filing editor has listed themselves and two other editors. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, and it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. Also, one other registered editor and an unregistered editor have taken part in the talk page discussion and in the editing of the article, but have neither been listed nor notified. The filing editor may refile this case if they list all of the involved editors and provide them with proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Chai Vang
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Neither of the editors commented after being asked to provide concise civil neutral comments. It isn't clear that there is a content dispute at all, since neither of the editors are participating in this dispute resolution. If the editors have been on vacation, either of them is welcome to refile this case, but they should be aware that they need to participate actively during moderated discussion. If there are specific content issues, an alternative would be Request for Comments. Conduct issues can be taken to the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay because your own conduct may also be examined. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview
Truth is, there was 2 confrontations and the victims chased down Vang and confronted him again and also blocked Vang from leaving after being confronted again. Multiple sources, the court transcript, the trial video recording and audio recording of the victim's testimonies all prove my case.
The article also neglects the significant details of the case by not including threats that were made to Vang by the victims and that one of the victims stepped in Vang's way, blocking Vang from leaving. Plenty of articles states that but it isn't included in the article which just shows you how biased this is. More examples of the bias in the article; Where is the details of the Hmong communities's reaction? Why is there only one thing written in the reaction section which was saying Hmongs aren't aware of trespassing and that they were being educated to understand trespassing. There were plenty of reactions by many communities. Such as a White supremacists group distributing flyers, protesters with signs saying send Vang back to Vietnam, Vang's wife being threatened, and Vang's home being burned down. These are all significant details that wasn't included in the article that happened because of the shooting. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Debated on the talk page and turned to Neutral POV noticeboard. How do you think we can help? Take complete control of the edits of the article and edit it and have more opinions about the conflict. Summary of dispute by WilliamThweattThis feels a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping by an WP:SPA with a stated agenda (here, here, here, and especially, here) of victim blaming. There has been copious discussion on the article talk page, and the complainant has recently made two previous appeals (here and here) to WP:NPOV/N that didn't go "his way". The "sources" he wants to include have been evaluated (see the talk page discussion and the NPOV/N links above) and, from the ones deemed reliable and/or usable, I have incorporated the information into the article...that is, from the very sources he provided! It has been explained to him (by users other than myself) at the other forums why the other "sources" aren't suitable or are WP:UNDUE, he just keeps refusing to hear that Wikipedia isn't the place to right perceived wrongs. Everything that needs to be said has already been said, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss or that any further discussion would be productive.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Talk:Chai Vang 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. I will ask each of the parties to present a new summary of the case, since the previous statements contained too much hostility and commenting on contributors. Here are a few ground rules. I will check this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to comment at least every 48 hours. Comment on content, not on contributors. Comment on contributors will either be collapsed or hatted, or will result in the case being failed. I will have a zero-tolerance attitude toward comments on contributors that are not meant to improve the article. Do not edit the article while this case is being discussed. Do not comment at the talk page, because comments at the talk page may be ignored. Be civil and concise. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia. It is mandatory, especially in content dispute resolution. Excessively long posts may make the poster feel better, but they don't help clarify anything. Please respond with civil and concise summaries of what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
First statements by editors
|
Talk:Kurds#Flag of_Iraqi_Kurdistan_is_not_the_flag_of_all_Kurdish_groups
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The discussion on which flag to use — which is very close to being too stale to handle here, having ended on November 30 — has now obtained a new element of whether a flag should be used at all under Wikipedia guidelines. Those facts, together with the fact that at least one major disputant in the earlier discussion is no longer available, suggests that this case is not ready for dispute resolution and needs further discussion at the article talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|