This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Talk:Somali Civil_War#Editorializing
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 130.105.197.39 on 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC).
Conversation was apparently abandoned by filing party.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Someone here doesn't "get" WP:TRUTH. I'm trying to edit the article to remove judgemental language from the content page. They're trying to stop my edits, claiming the pre-existing version to be accurate, while I'm trying to remove judgemental language from the article content page claiming that whether or not their judgements are accurate, the judgements still are not objective. Cordless Larry is trying to use allegedly "reliable" sources to support the judgemental language. This is what I would tell him: those sources probably contain the judgemental language solely because they are not Wikipedia and as such are not subject to the various policies Wikipedia has against the judgemental language involved in this dispute.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Not applicable.
How do you think we can help?
This is my first time through this process, so I have no opinions, or "thoughts" as it were, as to how you can help resolve this. Please try your best.
Summary of dispute by Buckshot06
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cordless Larry has provided the main response to this user's edits, so I will wait for him to comment and then amplify if necessary. Regards Buckshot06(talk) 10:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
In addition to what Cordless has said about somewhat questionable meanings of the word 'authority' used, on my talkpage the IP appears to have questioned the authority the UN Security Council has over its own peacekeeping forces, and has removed the technical term, 'authorise', used to initiate the deployment of UN/AU peacekeeping forces. I believe we should use the correct technical terms to aid informed discussion. All in all this is a much bigger subject than the Somali Civil War, and the IP in question should be arguing for much greater policy changes rather than starting on one particular war's page. Regards Buckshot06(talk) 10:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Would also note, re-reading the IP's statements, that he appears to argue that only sources on-wikipedia can be 'reliable', which appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding or misapplication of WP:Reliable Sources; our best sources, often cited at Somali Civil War, are peer-reviewed academic publications. Buckshot06(talk) 16:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cordless Larry
The IP editor (including at this address but also others - I assume they have a dynamic IP) objects to use of terms such as "central authorities" in the article, suggesting that that term implies moral authority, whereas my view is that it fairly clearly refers to the second definition here, "a group of people with official responsibility for a particular area of activity". They are also insisting on capitalising the first letter in "state", which I don't think reflects standard practice on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 130.105.197.39
The form says, "do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread", so I'll wait until a volunteer gets here. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly what I've been trying to talk about: I never questioned the alleged truth of the statement that the UN has authority. I questioned the alleged objectivity of the statement. The other editors are asserting the alleged truth of the statement again and again, but that's not the aspect of the statement that I questioned. Clearly, they don't get WP:TRUTH, assuming that all truths are objective truths. Also, what is allegedly "correct" language for the allegedly "reliable" sources is judgemental language here, and while judgemental language may or may not have a place in those sources, those are probably not encyclopedias and so may have different policies on judgemental language. Judgemental language having a place in article content pages is completely different from judgemental language having a place in reliable sources, so something that can have a place there might not have a place on content pages here. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Buckshot06 says that apparently I've argued that only sources on-wikipedia can be 'reliable'. I don't agree with that. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there some sort of way could make some progress here? 130.105.197.39 (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Somali Civil_War#Editorializing discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
*
Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page, and the filing unregistered editor has notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer response I am KDS4444 and I am going to take a shot at helping resolve this dispute. I need to begin with some caveats: although I have no previous involvement in this article or any related ones (that I can think of) I am already somewhat familiar with the edit history of Cordless Larry, a user I respect and whose edit history is diverse and well-established. When a request for dispute resolution comes from an editor with a fluctuating IP address and therefore no consistent edit history, and is filed because of a conflict with a user who has committed to having a single username and who has a solid and lengthy edit history, whatever the nature of the dispute, I am finding myself immediately more likely to support the user whose edit history I can trace and with whom I happen to have interacted professionally in the past. I cannot deny that this affects my thinking, and will say here that it is actually appropriate for it to do so— not that I haven't read the above summary of the dispute, because I have, but because having history shows that the user knows the ropes of Wikipedia, and I can immediately see that this user knows the same ropes that I do. If you only edit Wikipedia in casual, minor ways, an IP account is perfectly appropriate; if you are going to file for dispute resolution, it is much better (though not technically necessary, of course) if you have the background/ history for your request to be taken seriously.
And so, having said all that, I will now say that it looks to me like the IP user is perhaps not as familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies as others in this dispute. The word "state" should seldom be capitalized, and I don't see the term "central authority" as an interpretation for "moral authority". I understand that this war is an emotional topic (what war is not?) but that does not mean editors are free to mess with the article writing guidelines with regard to capitals or periods or spelling or bold or italic text— such things take precedence.
If there is more substance to this request for dispute resolution (?), I look forward to seeing it; a request for dispute resolution over these kinds of minutiae strikes me as possibly premature. Generally, IP users are almost always better off deferring to users with extensive edit histories unless the issue is particularly grievous. For those involved, please add any corrections to my interpretation below, and let's see if we can't resolve this. KDS4444 (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Does my lack of an account mean that WP:TRUTH doesn't apply anymore? Please cite the guidelines specifically. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH holds irrespective of any person's account status. I think everyone takes that point for granted. Having said that, there are always truths that depend on context and perspective, and what is true for me may not be true (or as true) for you, which means objective truth must somehow be sought. Are you claiming an objective truth is being rejected? Can you please be specific as to what that truth is and show how it is independent of context and perspective? And can you posit some explanation as to why you think other editors may be refusing to accept it? Reasons such as "They are idiots" or "they are just being mean" are not going to fly. I don't think any legitimate Wikipedia editor is opposed to objective truth (though perhaps you would like to argue that they have political motivations? Or some other, less obvious one?). KDS4444 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I indeed did not then, and do not at this time, have any intention of alleging that they are idiots or are just being mean whatsoever. Thank you, KDS4444, for upholding WP:TRUTH without regard to any person's account status. To the point - by which which I mean WP:TRUTH - there are indeed subjective truths, but I am not claiming that an objective truth is being thrown away. I am claiming that the statements entailed by various choices of wording on various articles - Somali Civil War is one - are being treated as truths that are objective enough to belong in Wikipedia. One of the statements is that the United Nations has authority to authorize various UN-sponsored missions in Somalia, of which UNOSOM I and UNOSOM II are all of them or are examples of them. The other statement, or one of the other statements, is that Siad Barre's administration did not have authority. I did not claim that the statements were false, nor did I question the alleged truth of the statements. And I say "alleged" because I do not mean to bring up the issue of truth. What I questioned wasn't the alleged truth of the statements, it was the alleged objectivity of the statements.
Here's where I explain why reliable sources saying or doing something does not override Wikipedia's policies. Now of course because it would be a circular cause and consequence, the purpose of having reliable sources would be defeated if Wikipedia were to present information and then support the information by citing itself as a reliable source, and that is not intended as a denial or affirmation of Wikipedia's reliability. It simply explains why Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are not part of Wikipedia. Because the reliable sources that Wikipedia may cite are necessarily outside of Wikipedia, they are not subject to Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is. Therefore, when a reliable source says or does something that would violate Wikipedia's policies were it to be in Wikipedia, that is not sufficient for the something to wind up in Wikipedia. And there is almost without doubt such a thing as what a reliable source says or does that would violate Wikipedia's policies were it to be in Wikipedia. To just make up an example inspired by this conversation itself, if a reliable source were to say "The reason why rival scholars voiced their disagreement in their papers in journals is because they are idiots and they were just being mean", then depending on the source's rules, that could be okay for the reliable source, but it has to be left out of Wikipedia because Wikipedia's rules are different from the source's rules and are not overridden just because a reliable source does not follow them. Cordless Larry claimed to have reliable sources for various examples of judgmental language. He hasn't presented his allegedly reliable sources.
As for your request for me to suggest, or "posit" so to speak, some explanation as to why the other editors may be refusing to accept the truth, I must decline to give a straightforward answer to this question because I don't actually know what would be the right straightforward answer. As I've explained above, there is no "truth" that I'm trying to get the other editors to accept as something to put into the article, but is being refused by them. The question I'd ask in its place is, "Why are they so reluctant to talk about WP:TRUTH, and what is so important to them about judgmental language?" The answer to that one is: I don't actually know, but I have various guesses. Are you sure you want to hear them? 130.105.197.39 (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What language specifically do you want a source for? Here's one for the use of "authorisation" in relation to UNOSOM II, if that helps. There are many more, as a Google search reveals. This is also the language used in other Wikipedia articles about the UN. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't actually want a source, because as I've explained, no reliable source would get me to accept the judgmental language. However, as you can see from the edit history,
* "opposition to Siad Barre" was reverted to "resistance to the Siad Barre regime",
* "vying" was reverted to "competing",
* "State" was reverted to "central authority",
* "against" was reverted to "to clean up",
* "regime" was restored to the title of the section referring to Barre's fall,
* "harsh" was reverted to "authoritarian",
* "him" was reverted to "his regime",
* "increase" was reverted to "grow",
* "using" was reverted to "exploiting",
* "insurgencies" was reverted to "resistance movements",
* "Barre" was reverted to "Barre's regime",
* the admittedly ungrammatical "the Barre's" was reverted to "the regime's",
* "the legitimacy of" was restored,
* "power" was reverted to "authority", a word choice that alleges that Mohamed Farah Aidid and Ali Mahdi Mohamed would have authority over the capital,
* "is widely claimed to have given authority to take place" is reverted to "approved", which is odd because Buckshot06 himself said "Do not make any changes that remove the word 'authorize/authorise' for UNSCRs talking about new troop deployments", under the premise "That's the accurate word to describe what UNSCRs do in this case".
* "claims to have" is erased by means of reversion,
* "The U.S." is reverted to "U.S. authorities".
This is not meant as an exhaustive list. Some of the entries may seem ungrammatical on their own, but as you can see from the context in the difference between revisions, grammar is not among the issues here. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
It might be that some of those changes are good, but note that they were all made in one edit, with no edit summary, and they were reverted as such as I wasn't going to pick through them all individually and you had already been reverted once. If you want to make a case for any of them individually, then please do so, per WP:BRD. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of restoring "the Barre's". Otherwise, I don't have to argue for them individually. Not only is your content fundamentally in conflict with WP:TRUTH, it's not even doing that properly. It's in conflict with Buckshot06's demand, "Do not make any changes that remove the word 'authorize/authorise' for UNSCRs talking about new troop deployments" by reverting "is widely claimed to have given authority to take place" to "approved", it's also reverting "power" to "authority" in such a way that defeats it's own POV or editorializing or whatever is going on here by making Aidid look good. No reliable source can, by doing something that doesn't comply with Wikipedia's rules, make it fit into Wikipedia's rules, and even if a reliable source could do that, your chief source is television. Television is not a reliable source. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
As for WP:BRD, you've already faulted me for having been reverted once, so we'll discuss this right here and now. I'm not using the BRD cycle. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 06:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this is the D stage of BRD. I'm unaware of any rule that says that television isn't a reliable source (of course, it depends on the particular programme and broadcaster), but there are plenty more than use "authorise" in relation to UN missions. I was just giving that as an example. Here is a more scholarly source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This is totally irrelevant, anyway, because as I've explained to you, it's WP:TRUTH, not CLB:TRUTH. Just because WP:TRUTH doesn't apply to Commonwealth Law Bulletin, doesn't mean it doesn't apply here. Now we can go over the alleged reliability of your sources all day, so to speak, but none of that will ever accomplish anything because reliability isn't enough to get judgmental language into Wikipedia, so it's not what we're supposed to be talking about here. KDS4444, please say something. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: WP:WikiVoice.
"* Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." 130.105.197.39 (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I note that above, you state "those are probably not encyclopedias", referring to sources that use the language you consider judgmental. However, the Encyclopædia Britannica article on the UN Security Council uses "authorise": "Beginning in the late 1980s, there was a surge in the number of peacekeeping operations (including observer missions) authorized by the Security Council; between 1948 and 1978, only 13 missions had been authorized, but between 1987 and 2000 some three dozen operations were approved, including those in the Balkans, Angola, Haiti, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Somalia". Anyway, I would also appreciate KDS4444's view at this point. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I'm about to have lunch with my mom, and when I'm done I will respond here. Thank you. (Let me quickly say at least this much: I do not consider television broadcasts to be ideal sources: they can be difficult to verify, and their consistency is only so-so. However, I do believe, for example, that the staff at NBC has lots of editorial oversight, does a lot of fact checking, and can certainly be considered reliable on most any subject. Its broadcast history can be verified, and it is usually independent of its subject matter. Not as handy as a journal article, no, but within the realm of acceptable sourcing. Fox, news, maybe not so much. More in a bit.)KDS4444 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I am not advocating citing that source in the article. I just provided it to demonstrate that sources (of which this is one of many) use "authorise" to describe the UN Security Council's approval of missions. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer response Okay, lunch is over. The IP user has presented a non-exhaustive list of words that were reverted back. Let me quickly go over these:
* "administration" was reverted to "regime", - I will grant that "regime" is less neutral than "administration". On the other hand, Barre was the leader of a military junta, and while "administration" describes many other forms of government, "regime" is not at all inappropriate for describing rule by junta- I am not sure why anyone would want to insist on "administration" here except to make a point. Juntas have regimes.
* "opposition to Siad Barre" was reverted to "resistance to the Siad Barre regime", - This seems like semantics, though "resistance" implies that the action against him was not just political, and it looks like people died opposing him
* "vying" was reverted to "competing", - I see no difference here
* "State" was reverted to "central authority", - I think I've already addressed this
* "against" was reverted to "to clean up", - No comment
* "regime" was restored to the title of the section referring to Barre's fall,- already addressed
* "harsh" was reverted to "authoritarian", - semantics
* "him" was reverted to "his regime", - this depersonalizes the situation, which is perhaps not inappropriate as it appears that he and the members of his family clans constituted the government's inner circles
* "increase" was reverted to "grow", - semantics
* "using" was reverted to "exploiting", - "exploiting" is somewhat less neutral, but again, this is largely a semantic difference
* "insurgencies" was reverted to "resistance movements", - semantics
* "Barre" was reverted to "Barre's regime", - see above
* the admittedly ungrammatical "the Barre's" was reverted to "the regime's", - no worries
* "the legitimacy of" was restored, - to what?
* "power" was reverted to "authority", a word choice that alleges that Mohamed Farah Aidid and Ali Mahdi Mohamed would have authority over the capital, - I am sensing more semantics here
* "is widely claimed to have given authority to take place" is reverted to "approved", - this looks like a case of poor writing being returned to more concise, equally-accurate text. I might have "appeared in the eyes of some to have attempted to assemble a seemingly relevant series of Roman typeset characters for the purpose of making some as yet unknown and perhaps never to be known point with regard to the above matter", or I could have "written a sentence." This is a style choice, but I prefer to get where I am going without circumlocution when I can. Sorry, that was just rude of me. It sounded funny at the time, but now that I read it again, it isn't. Apologies. I am a dick sometimes and I am trying to work on that.
* "a State" is reverted to "public authorities", - why would anyone want to change this from "public authorities" in the first place?
* "to their hegemony" was restored, - to/ from what?
* "were effective" was reverted to "had a positive impact", - semantics
* "power" was reverted to "strength", which is a well-known glittering generality, - depending on how used, either of those could be a glittering generality. I see little difference myself.
* "State" was reverted to "central authorities",- see above
* "State" was reverted to "authorities", - above
* "claims to have" is erased by means of reversion, - "claims to have" is borderline weasel wording— it waters things down, yes, but sometimes "neutral" can come out as whitewashing, which we do not want to do either.
* "The U.S." is reverted to "U.S. authorities". - semantics
I get the sense that the IP user made a series of changes, many of them small and innocuous, others that could be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash under the guise of "neutrality". To my surprise, I was not able to find any Wikipedia guidelines with regard to whitewashing, though it wonder if we aught not develop some. Anyhow, all of these changes got rejected in a revert. I know how frustrating it can be to feel like you have made a large number of small improvements to an article and then have all of those changes, whether good or bad, rejected outright by a casual revert. When this happens, it is very difficult for the reverting editor to assess each change and see if it was worth keeping— when in doubt, it then becomes much easier to throw out baby and bathwater and return to the status quo ante, just to be safe. It is not always a polite business, but it is a common one. On the other hand, I have seen editors make a series of very well thought-out minor improvements and have them all be retained because none of them was even slightly dubious. Sometimes we get people with exceptional editing skills to work on our articles, and when that happens, it shows: they make no mistakes, they eloquently paraphrase, they rewrite things with clearer, better-worded (not necessarily more-neutral) text. If you can edit like a pro, you can do so with relative impunity. If you can't, though, then even a few errors or dubious changes are likely to cause a baby-and-bathwater revert. One way of addressing this is to make changes in small batches— that forces reverting editors to consider just that set of changes in their decision to revert or retain. This does not mean those editors will still not decide to throw out each small batch, but it does require them to parse their justification for doing so. Having gone over the above changes, I am not convinced that the changes by the IP user were universally improvements to the article. Several of them may have been small, but some of the others are large enough in their implications to have warranted further examination. I myself would have wanted to revert a few, if not all of them. I would ask the IP user: How do you feel about making changes such as these in smaller batches and see to what extent other editors accept them? And also, and to the extent that you do not disagree with the interpretation, how do you feel about allowing the article to retain wording which, while not exactly neutral, preserves the unpleasant (and sometimes deadly) reality of life in Somalia under Barre and his clans? KDS4444 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I'll start with a pedantic, mechanistic response. You've asked about the context of some of the lines, so I'll go back over the data and mark all the changes with the line number.
* Line 5, box 3: "administration" was reverted to "regime",
* Line 64, box 3: "opposition to Siad Barre" was reverted to "resistance to the Siad Barre regime",
* Line 64, box 5: "vying" was reverted to "competing",
* Line 64, box 5: "State" was reverted to "central authority",
* Line 64, box 9: "against" was reverted to "to clean up",
* Line 64, box 11: "regime" was restored to the title of the section referring to Barre's fall,
* Line 64, box 16: "harsh" was reverted to "authoritarian",
* Line 64, box 16: "him" was reverted to "his regime",
* Line 64, box 16: "increase" was reverted to "grow",
* Line 64, box 16: "using" was reverted to "exploiting",
* Line 64, box 16: "insurgencies" was reverted to "resistance movements",
* Line 64: "Barre" was reverted to "Barre's regime",
* Line 91, box 3: the admittedly ungrammatical "the Barre's" was reverted to "the regime's",
* Line 91, box 3: "the legitimacy of" was restored,
* Line 91, box 5: "power" was reverted to "authority", a word choice that alleges that Mohamed Farah Aidid and Ali Mahdi Mohamed would have authority over the capital,
* Line 101, box 3: "is widely claimed to have given authority to take place" is reverted to "approved", which is odd because Buckshot06 himself said "Do not make any changes that remove the word 'authorize/authorise' for UNSCRs talking about new troop deployments", under the premise "That's the accurate word to describe what UNSCRs do in this case".
* Line 101, box 5: "a State" is reverted to "public authorities",
* Line 101, box 5: "to their hegemony" was restored,
* Line 101, box 9: "were effective" was reverted to "had a positive impact",
* Line 133, box 8: "power" was reverted to "strength", which is a well-known glittering generality,
* Line 166, box 3: "State" was reverted to "central authorities",
* Line 166, box 5: "State" was reverted to "authorities",
* Line 166, box 8: "claims to have" is erased by means of reversion,
* Line 189, box 3: "The U.S." is reverted to "U.S. authorities".
This is also incredibly pedantic, but no babies are involved. More on point, "authoritarian" and "strength" are well-known glittering generalities. In my opinion, the reason why you see little difference yourself is that in terms of denotation, there quite frankly is none. By definition, a glittering generality makes little difference in denotation. A glittering generality that makes little difference in denotation is still a glittering generality. It violates WP:WikiVoice by being a glittering generality. "Semantics" is a noun with three meanings, so I don't know what it means here. 130.105.197.39 (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have read the above, and I understand that you have now specified the exact lines which you had changed and which were reverted without much explanation, causing to seek dispute resolution. I am responding by saying that many of the changes which you sought to make seemed to me to be relatively inconsequential (by "semantics", I meant that the difference between the two words/ terms is only one of linguistics and symbology, not one of consequence— the difference between "vying" and "competing" comes down to semantics, not to substantial differences in meaning or intent). But we are creating a very long discussion here that I am not sure is getting us where we want to go. I made a few suggestions above for how you might approach editing this article from here on in, but you have not responded to them. That was my gesture to resolve this dispute, to move it forward. Please let me know how you feel about that, and if you think you would be willing to try it. KDS4444 (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note three days of silence starts to mean everyone has backed off and that this dispute can be considered resolved pretty soon.... If anyone disagrees with that conclusion, you need to speak up now. I am setting a clock for 24 hours. No response from anyone by then, and I am calling this issue resolved. KDS4444 (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd be happy to continue with the process, KDS4444, but the filing party seems to have lost interest. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Larry! I agree, and am marking this case accordingly. KDS4444 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Saraiki dialect
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by AksheKumar on 07:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Closed as already decided by Request for Comments. This noticeboard is not a place to re-debate an issue that has been decided by a Request for Comments, whether Saraiki is a dialect or a language. The consensus is that it is a dialect. Using this noticeboard to re-discuss is forum shopping. Edits to the article that call it a language should be reverted. If there are objections to the way that the RFC was closed, closure review may be requested at the administrators' noticeboard. Please do not re-open this case, and please do not add anything to it. Unrelated content issues may be discussed on the article talk page. Conduct issues may be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The Wiki page related to Saraiki dialect has been poorly written. Much of the content was modified by Uanfala recently. Most of edits are against recently closed RFC and closed Title discussions. According to RFC & Title Disscusions Saraiki is not a Language [1].
Still First line was modified as; Saraiki (سرائیکی Sarā'īkī, also spelt Siraiki, or less often Seraiki) is an Indo-Aryan language of the Western Punjabi (Lahnda) group, spoken in the southern half of the province of Punjab in Pakistan .Before modification it was; Saraiki (Punjabi: سرائیکی (Sarā'ikī) is a dialect of Punjabi.[1].
Same kind of modifications were made to Punjab Districts [2][3][4]. Mother tongue could be a dialect/language/pidgin/creole. Source also never defined it as Language. Still tagging Saraiki as Language is knowing fully cheating RFC.
Dialect section was added to a Dialect Page. Not Sub dialects section. This section was poorly written language research paper that included Sindhi Saraiki. Ironically first thing article says is
Not to be confused with the Siraiki dialect of Sindhi.
. This is a simple mess of central east west north arbitrarily crafted dialect folio. Cracks are visible e.g. Jhnagi is shown as Saraiki dialect but National census book for Jhang shows 97 % Jhang speaking Punjabi as mother tongue and 3 % Urdu [5] Dito for Shahpuri of Sargodha [6] and bars of Sahiwal [7].
Restore article to give effect to RFC. Dialect section be scrapped.Punjab district edits should use what source says not what we want to show it.
Summary of dispute by Uanfala
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The only "conflict" I have with AksheKumar was on the Layyah District – I've brought up the issue at the user's talk page, but it's a bit strange I see them come to the DRN without bothering to reply there first. As for Saraiki dialect, this is an article that AksheKumar hasn't edited and I'm not sure on whose behalf he's seeking dispute resolution. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Adding that I don't have anything to say other than what has already been said on the article's talk page and I don't see any point in this thread here. I'm taking this off my watchlist so please ping me in case there's any development. – Uanfala (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Saraiki dialect discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been some discussion on the article talk page, although it has been disjointed. The filing party has listed one of the other editors at the top of the article and has pinged others. The filing party is requested to list all of the involved editors and to notify them on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - I will be closing this case shortly as a general close. The filing party, User:AksheKumar, has listed all of the editors on my talk page, but not here. Unfortunately, it isn't clear whether the filing editor, User:AksheKumar, will be able to take part in moderated discussion in English. They might be better off editing the Wikipedia in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: with all due respect Please Prefer nonjudgmental language. I am proficient in English. Next time I will use more simple words to make it clearer for your comprehension of the case. Summary of Conflict is reproduced in simple point by point sequence.
Talk Page consensus Year 2012-13: Saraiki is not a Language. It is dialect of Punjabi
Move request decision: Title should not be named as Saraiki Language it should remain Saraiki dialect.
Move review decision: Move review decision was correct.
RFC decision: Saraiki is Not a language.
First Line: edited by user UanFala= Saraiki is an Indo Aryan Language. He discussed it on Talk page but failed in getting Consensus.
My OBJECTION first line should be in line with Talk page consensus, Move request decision, Move review decision, RFC decision. i.e. Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi.[1].
2ND OBJECTION Uanfla has added the term "First Language" for Saraiki dialect in articles on Districts of Punjab. Underline source have no such term instead the term Mother tongue is used. The term First language be replaced with mother tongue as it allows us flexibility to write Saraiki as a dialect not as a Language in line with first objection.
3RD OBJECTION One section in the said article was added by Uanfala naming Dialects which is poorly sourced . Fake groupings such as Eastern Saraiki and Sindhi Saraiki were added. This section heading should be Sub dialects. ONLY more reliably sourced 3 sub dialects of Saraiki Multani, Riasti and Thalochi should be detailed under the heading.AksheKumar (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@AksheKumar you are a Indian. what do you know about Saraiki. Do you have any proof other then Rana Dasgupta that Saraiki is a dialect ? SaraikiStudents (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Since the filing party states that they are competent in English, they are asked to update the case header to list the participants and to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply to SaraikiStudents It is not correct to call Saraiki a language different from Punjabi. Read more other then Rana Dasgupta on this scholarly link [11]Gvinayal (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment. In September, a technical move request to rename Saraiki dialect to "Saraiki language" was contested and a Requested move was opened. I closed that RM in October as "Not moved", and it was taken to Move review, where my close was "endorsed". Since then, a turmoil of edits and discussion has taken place in regard to when a "dialect" should be deemed a "language" on Wikipedia. I have not followed all this very closely, except (1) to note that there appears to be very strong motivations both to include information that Saraiki is becoming widely considered as a "language", as well as that Saraiki is still widely considered to be a dialect of the Punjabi language, (2) to endorse a decision at Move review in regard to the Hindko dialect, which was opened by User:Uanfala and is, at this time, not yet closed, and (3) to participate in User:Uanfala's attempt at WikiProject Languages to erect a standard that will help editors decide when and if to change article titles from "Foo dialect" to "Foo language". I find all this intensely interesting, as I cannot yet determine myself if any resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved readily exists. Paine Ellsworthu/c 08:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor's comment Peeta Singh was banned from Sikh and Punjabi related pages and is now blocked, so he will not be participating. Doug Wellertalk 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - The filing party has now listed the other editors, and has notified them. In view of the wording of the notification, which appears to be non-neutral but in any case is not in syntactically good written English, I still have very serious doubts as to whether the filing party is capable of taking part in moderated dispute resolution in English. However, I will wait for responses from the other notified editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Filling Party As soon as I clicked edit, Page notice alert popped up "Please keep discussions concise, and on topic. Volunteers are here to help" Robert McClenon please follow this and focus on content rather than English language course. Gvinayal there are dozen more scholarly links to satisfy SaraikiStudents. According to them Saraiki is a Punjabi dialect/Variant/variety. I can paste them all but AksheKumar objections are procedural. I mean in simple words he is asking action for enforcement of Talk page consensus, Move request/Move review /RFC decisions. Paine Ellsworth resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved already existed [12] right before first edit by Uanfala on 12 October 2016. It was a long standing version of this article. It was a balanced version and universally accepted since 2012. Not only it represented dialect status "mutually intelligible, morphologically and syntactically similar to standard Punjabi". At the same time it also elaborated Language claim "According to some, Saraiki is a separate language with its own standard as opposed to a dialect of Punjabi.The development of the standard written language began after the founding of Pakistan in 1947, driven by a regionalist political movement. I support filling party in all respects. LisaRoy (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved already existed...
To set the record straight, the above should read, "Paine Ellsworth resolution that would suit the needs of all editors involved who think it should be 'Saraiki dialect', not 'Saraiki language' already existed..."
The ensuing heated debates and editing are proof that there are other editors who were not satisfied with leaving the page title at "Saraiki dialect" and who think that renaming the article to "Saraiki language" would be an improvement. Paine Ellsworthu/c 10:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment from involved editor: the filing party has notified several users who haven't either edited the concerned article or participated in the talk page discussion, and at the same time has failed to notify those of the participants who don't share their opinion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply: I have listed few others now. I originally started dispute with Uanfla. l listed other on moderate request. Main editor since Oct 2016 whose changes to article are there in current state and dispute is Uanfala. Talk page discussion have no consensus on these changes. In fact all moderator discussion have closed against writing saraiki one dimensionaly as saraiki language. @Robert McClenon: I request for closure of this DR by restoring pre Uanfala universally accepted neutral version of article based on procedural basis highlighted by LisaRoy.AksheKumar (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Request for un involved volunteers: I was misconstrued many times by last volunteer. I request new un involved volunteer to listen the case on merit and decide. Please cooperate with us.AksheKumar (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - The purpose of this noticeboard is not to decide a case on its merits but to permit its editors to discuss the merits. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Filling Party I support first line should be Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi, However a new section with title Language claim could be added with detailed coverage of political claim. More sources for first line.
Pakistani Punjab have a generalized Punjabi patois understood throughout region with three main dialects one of them is Saraiki in south. Source "A country study Pakistan American University (Washington D.C.) Foreign Area Studies, United States. Dept. of the Army.[13]
Punjabi has six dialects in India and Pakistan including Saraiki spoken centered in Multan source India International Centre Quarterly, Volume 24 [14]
Pakistani Punjab have with three main dialects one of them is Saraiki in south. Source Outlook; a Journal of Opinion, Volume 3 Pakistan [15]
Hindko Pothohari Saraiki all are dialects of single Language (Western Punjabi) Source Unity in diversity: a vision for Pakistan by Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar [16]
Saraiki is a Punjabi variant Source The World Factbook: 2010 Edition (CIA's 2009 Edition) [17]Gvinayal (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk: Zsa Zsa Gabor
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Winkelvi on 16:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
Failed. This case has failed before being opened because the two editors are commenting on each other rather than on content. A Request for Comments is recommended as the next step in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A new account editor insists on reverting back in the following content to the article on Zsa Zsa Gabor: "The Gabor sisters were first cousins of Annette Lantos, wife of U.S. House Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA), the first Holocaust survivor elected to Congress."
I have removed this content a few times because it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA which is wholly unrelated to the article subject. It is about the article subject's cousin's husband, not the Gabor family. The content does not enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject. The new account editor who keeps re-inserting insists it's pertinent. I fail to see how it is pertinent. The new account editor will not discuss, only revert. Rather than go to more drastic measures (AN/I or AN3), I thought of starting an RfC, however, because RfCs can drag on for up to 30 days - and because I don't think this warrants more drastic measures like AN/I or AN/3, I decided this would be a more appropriate forum. Would appreciate help on this. Thank you.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Article talk page, notes left in edit summary. [18]
How do you think we can help?
Convince the other editor that this content is WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA. Their latest comment at the article talk page is, "I will not be bullied or threatened by you. I have asked for other opinions on the matter. While a discussion is occurring here please do not remove the disputed sentence as it is right now. If you do, you will be continuing your edit warring. A discussion is occurring." I think at this point, it's safe to say they are unwilling to discuss with me rationally.
Summary of dispute by Pauciloquence
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I notice in Winkelvi"s statement he said, "The new account editor will not discuss, only revert."
But this statement contradicts that first statement. "I want them to see their viewpoint is in error, that's the whole thrust of hashing through a dispute: people who have differing points of view and would like those without their point of view to see it in the appropriate light (especially in light of policy, when policy is clear on certain aspects that are being addressed in the original, fruitless discussions)."
So I did discuss with you on the talk page. Why did you write, "The new account editor will not discuss, only revert."
"I think at this point, it's safe to say they are unwilling to discuss with me rationally." This statement is certainly not showing good faith.
And btw, my wikipedia name is Pauciloquence, not new account editor. That is really quite rude of you. And you felt you had to say that three times. Why?
I have asked for other editors opinions on the article talk page. I would like to give them a chance to respond to that request. I feel that this posting at this board was quite premature, and just another intimidation and bullying tactic. I am not going to be bullied or intimidated. It is not wrong to ask for other opinions is it? Pauciloquence (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk: Zsa Zsa Gabor discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party did not notify the other editor of this discussion, but I have done that. I will suggest that the filing party review the purpose and FAQ for this noticeboard, because this noticeboard isn't the place to convince another editor of something, but for moderated discussion. If the filing party wants moderated discussion of whether the minor relationship information is due or undue weight, and the other editor wants to discuss, there can be moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Filing party note: I notified the other party on the article talk page and was about to notify them on their talk page when I noticed you had done that for me. It seems to me that asking or reminding me to do that would have been a better course than making a note here that I had not notified them (which is not quite accurate). Secondly, of course I want them to see their viewpoint is in error, that's the whole thrust of hashing through a dispute: people who have differing points of view and would like those without their point of view to see it in the appropriate light (especially in light of policy, when policy is clear on certain aspects that are being addressed in the original, fruitless discussions). Like I expressed in my original statement here, I intentionally chose this venue rather than something more "ominous" and threatening (ANI, AN3). It seemed to me that the other editor wants discussion but is unwilling to resolve anything (their discussion consists not of policy-based rationale but WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI feelings. Here is a great place to resolve rather than attack (which ANI and AN3 is often perceived to be and I don't want to happen). The point of this noticeboard is to convince others of certain viewpoint and policies via discussion and come to a resolution borne out of WP:COMMONSENSE and policy that should be the basis for that "convincing", is it not? -- WV ● ✉✓ 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - My apologies if the wording was not ideal. In this situation, I think that a request for a third opinion would be even less formal and quicker. If you post such a request, this request can be put on hold until the third opinion is answered. Alternatively, we can just wait to see if they want to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Filer response: How about we keep it here for now and see if we can get a resolution between the other editor and myself? The irrelevant content I believe should not be in the article isn't harming the article at the moment, so I see no need for speed. If this is the best place for a peaceful resolution, I'd prefer that. -- WV ● ✉✓ 17:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Filer comment: Robert McClenon, per this [19] and this [20], it would seem Pauciloquence is choosing to not discuss here and get our differences and the issue resolved. I was hoping he would, but it looks like it's not in the cards. Maybe leave this open another day to give him a chance to reconsider, but if he does nothing within that time, you can probably close this. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉✓ 01:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Winkelvi, if you really want to have a discussion here then you should respond to my post above. Pauciloquence (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I would have, Pauciloquence, if there was anything in your post above that was discussion material. What you posted are accusations, aggressiveness, and saying you didn't want to discuss here because you felt the filing of this request for discussion was "premature". If you comment with something that actually looks like an attempt to discuss, I will be happy to respond in kind. -- WV ● ✉✓ 02:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I posted facts and questions about what you had posted. I can understand why you would not want to answer and continue the discussion. Exactly where did I say "saying you didn't want to discuss here"? The only editor being aggressive and rude in their posting here has been you. I thank Robert McClenon for his apologies. Pauciloquence (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Posting "facts and questions about what you had posted" is not discussing to get a resolution in regard to the content in dispute. That's what this forum is for, not attacking the editor you are having the content dispute with. This comment from you, " I have asked for other editors opinions on the article talk page. I would like to give them a chance to respond to that request. I feel that this posting at this board was quite premature, and just another intimidation and bullying tactic." makes it clear you are not interested in discussing here, rather, you want to get the opinions of other editors at the article's talk page. Which has been happening today, by the way. And those opinions are, by and large, not agreeing with you. If it were a formal RfC, it would now stand at 3 for what I'm proposing (including myself) and 2 (including you) for what you are insisting on and were edit warring over. Keep in mind that if an RfC is started, there will be editors alerted to the discussion and you run the risk of not getting what you are looking for. Here, we can work it out together and with a neutral volunteer moderator. Which way would you rather go? -- WV ● ✉✓ 02:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This DRN of yours is pure BS. You started and continued edit warring and writing essays on the talk page. Talking about your private life, then attacking Pauciloquence for personalizing, which he never did. All over a few sentences in a bio. It's obvious, Winkelvi, that all you really want is an audience. Pauciloquence said you've been blocked numerous times for disruptive behavior, which, if true, means all the admins of the noticeboards are well aware of. Yet they allow you, for some reason, to keep making speeches and attacking newbies with nonsense. If you have anything to say about those few edits, just keep it in the talk page. As far as I can see, the topic's been settled in any case. --Light show (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Asking questions about what you initially posted is certainly not attacking you. As far as what you posted above about my asking for other opinions at the talkpage, your counting system looks to be off a bit and misleading. Only one other editor has even posted in the undue? section. And you were the one edit warring there to keep your preferred version in the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Strongly support original poster's inclusion of this information in the article. This strongly smells like WIKI:IDON'TLIKEIT. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:LGBT symbols
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by MercyStreet on 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Participants have agreed to a solution, no further dispute mediation necessary. KDS4444 (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
StasekLem has been repeatedly removing the asexual pride flag, bisexual pride flag, and other symbols from the LGBT symbols page, claiming that they are 'not in widespread use.' Multiple sources were provided on the talk page by multiple other editors. I believe he has violated the 3RR by repeatedly reversing edits even AFTER multiple sources were provided showing the widespread use of these symbols by orgs such as GLAAD, the Trevor Project, and even independent regional counseling facilities.
I'm not sure if this is because he isn't part of the LGBTQ community or because he doesn't primarily speak English, but StasekLem seems to be setting himself up as the singular arbiter of what is or isn't 'widespread use' or 'enough sources.' We have provided half a dozen independent sources over the course of days and he continues to revert edits and talk down to the other editors.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
1. Provided the requested information
2. Provided more information when told it wasn't 'enough.'
3. Provided more information and references to the Wikipedia rules and regs in order to clarify sources.
4. Followed the Wikipedia procedures on dispute resolution when StasekLem made comment to 'shaking our walled garden' (clearly this is personal) and informed that I was seeking mediation
5. Disengaged and sought mediation.
How do you think we can help?
1. Provide clear direction on what 'enough sources' are.
2. Remind StasekLem that he is not the sole arbiter of what is or isn't enough or what is or isn't widespread use, and that removing information from a page when a discussion is ongoing (by his own admission) isn't okay
3. Resolve whether or not 'enough sources' have been provided, and if not, how many more sources than six, covering 5+ years, are necessary.
Summary of dispute by Staszek Lem
I don't want to deal with reverse bigotry from a flock of new accounts, and I have already stated it their talk page that I will no longer discuss it and I have already stopped editing it. All my arguments are in the talk page. I came to this page during a routine cleanup of unreferenced stuff. This subject is not vital to my interests, therefore I am no longer willing to explain our core content policies to newcomers with apparent bias towards this subject who refuse to listen and keep accusing me of ignorance. Thank you, no more comment on this subject from me. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ariadne Lily
Saw that the asexual content had been deleted. Went on talk page, saw several sources dismissed and comment broken up by another user, so provided more information on the talk page and restored Asexuality section, as credible sources were provided. Another user remarked on agreement with content restore, and remarked on Wikipedia's preserve policy. MercyStreet then provided more credible sources, in order to ensure content would remain, remarked on belonging to LGBT community and being aware of symbols. Stasek Lem then remarked on Wikipedia policy, ignored sources and claimed editors needed to find credible sources. MercyStreet remarked on seeking mediation. I then remarked on wanting to seek mediation as well, and mentioned disruptive editing and ignoring sources/lack of knowledge, requested no further removals until resolved, disengaged Was told I was belligerent by Stasek Lem. Other users continued providing sources.
Talk:LGBT symbols discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. The filing party is expected to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer response I am KDS444 and I am here to attempt to resolve this dispute. I have to begin by making some observations: Staszek Lem (talk·contribs) has an edit history of nearly 30,000 edits, more than twice my own, and that the other editors involved in this dispute have fewer than 50 edits combined. I must also confess that I myself am a member of the LGBT community, and therefore am not entirely uninvolved in the outcome of this discussion. However, before my community identity I am a Wikipedia editor, and more than this, I am a volunteer at this noticeboard. In light of this, I have two statements: first, I would like to hear from Staszek Lem on this matter. Second, I must state that there is no formal policy with regard to any "minimum" number of references required before any particular piece of information may be included on Wikipedia— much more important than number is the reliability of the sources.
Once I have hear from Lem, I will comment further. KDS4444 (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Suggest close because I will no longer dispute this issue. As I wrote in the talk page, I have rattled this cage a bit and I hope it will naturally become more adhering to our content standards, because, as I see, people started discussing sources in the talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Closing It looks like this discussion has reached its conclusion, and my thanks to those involved for working it out. KDS4444 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
David Seaman's page
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Per article deletion log entry, AfD discussion already took place here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Seaman_(journalist). You may reach out to the deleting admin Samwalton9 if you have questions regarding their administrative discretion. However, since AfD has already concluded proposed article deletion, it would be advisable for you to accept the outcome per issues with WP:Notability, etc. highlighted in the AfD discussion. JustBerry (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by 50.106.23.226 on 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Wikipedia, I am writing regarding David Seaman's wikipedia page: it was deleted. The deletion of his wikipedia page is unacceptable. He is a journalist who has worked for major publications like The Huffington Post. Wikipedia should not censor, much less on the basis of controversy. Pizzagate has not been disproven. No law enforcement officials have said that it is not real. Even Snopes (which isn't terribly reliable but is considered to be such) could not definitely say that Pizzagate is unfounded, they basically came down on the side of saying that it's unclear at the present whether Podesta and Alefantis are pedophiles or not. And so to just flat-out delete David Seaman's wikipedia page just because he is presenting Pizzagate evidence and is saying it is real, that is unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia's part.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Others have tried and gotten it reedited to reshow his credential when they were removed for no reason off his wikipedia page.
How do you think we can help?
Reinstate David Seaman's wikipedia page and lock it so that it cannot be messed with anymore.
Summary of dispute by David Seaman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
David Seaman's page discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Christmas#Date format
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Walter Görlitz on 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC).
Closed as superseded. As noted, an RFC has been started. An RFC takes precedence over all other methods of content dispute resolution. The RFC should be allowed to run for thirty days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A date format template was added to the article a year ago. Whether it was added correctly or not is not my primary concern and would be happy to discuss a new format. Davey2010 continues to remove the correct application.
Third opinion? Discussion on new formatting? Not sure what Davey2010 will accept.
This seems unnecessary as the other editor opened an RfC and one of the editors has applied a universal date format until a decision is reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Christmas#Date format discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
At the moment I've self reverted and have started an RFC, I'll be totally honest .... I have absolutely no idea what to do for the best, At the moment one editor has suggested sticking with YMD so it could be a YMD only article but if anyone has any better solutions on how to resolve this I'd be more than happy to hear them and will do my best to help in resolving it aswell, Thanks. –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as abandoned. There has been no comment for several days. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new discussion request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There are two users EkoGraf and MAMODIVIC(very likely sock puppet) who disagrees with my edits. Both users are cherry picking: they pick some old news and edit the casualties section according to those news, while they ignore newest sources.
I simply edited casualties section using newest sources: YeniSafak source which has published conflict stats(casualties) from 1984 to 2015, and AA source which has published stats from 2015 to November 2016. Also, 7 other sources support my edits.
However, both EkoGraf and MAMODIVIC disagree with my edits. They believe that the old Milliyet news from 2010, which has published stats from 1984 to 2010, should be used instead of newest sources because stats of newest sources(1984-2015) have mentioned only ~4,7k captured&wounded fighters while the old Milliyet news from 2010 has mentioned 19k captured fighters. So, they believe we should pick Milliyet stats from 2010 because casualties reported in that one are higher than newest ones. I believe this is wrong because newest sources from conflict are more reliable than older ones. Also, their source Milliyet has published conflict stats again in 2012, in which it hasn't anymore mentioned "19k captured fighters"(2010 stats were very likely wrong and they fixed it in 2012), but both users still want to use the older Milliyet news from 2010 even though the Milliyet news in 2012 doesn't anymore included that.
I try to tell both users that newest sources are more reliable than older ones and if there are 9 sources that support my edits, but only 1 source which supports their edits (+ my 9 sources are against their edits), then they need to either come with more reliable sources which will support their edits or give up. Both users are not understanding this.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have tried to tell them that cherry picking is not allowed in Wikipedia and explained with details what is wrong with their edits.
How do you think we can help?
If you convince both users that cherry picking is not allowed.
If you convince both users that if there is 9 reliable sources against 1 pro-state source, then the latter one is in weaker position.
If you convince both users that if a newspaper has published stats in 2010, and it has also published same stats again in 2012, and if stats of newspaper in 2012 are in conflict with stats of the same newspaper in 2010, then the newest(2012) should be picked and older(2010) stats should be ignored.
Summary of dispute by EkoGraf
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First, its untrue I am cherry picking and second its untrue I am picking some old news, in fact, I have been trying to use newer more up-to-date sources over older ones. Ferakp was reverting back to a total of fatalities based on sources for the 1984-2015 period and 2015-November 2016 period. While I was trying to update it to a total of fatalities based on sources for the 1984-2015 period and 2015-December 2016 period. As far as I know, a source for fatalities from December 2016, is newer and more up-to-date than a source from November 2016. Now, regarding the numbers of captured, Ferakp is insisting on using the figure of captured from the YeniSafak source because (as he said correctly) its a newer source than the Milayet source from 2010. However, he misses the fact that the YeniSafak source only talks about the figure of captured wounded fighters, and not those who were captured unharmed, arrested or simply turned themselves in, which the Milayet source from 2010 does state (19,000+ total). (Between, contrary to what Ferakp said, the YeniSafak source doesn't mention anywhere ~4,7k captured or wounded, instead just 1,480 captured wounded) Ferakp then stated that another Milayet source from 2012 is more up-to-date than the 2010 one. When I used the 2012 Milayet link he himself provided (which cites 203,000 arrested/captured since 1984) he thought I was not serious and he reverted it back to the Milayet 2010 figure of 19,000+ (so please note, contrary to what Ferakp said, I did use the newer 2012 Milayet source, but he reverted the numb back to the one from the 2010 source). Ferakp showed bad faith with the sockpuppet accusations against me, even though I wanted to resolve the issue through discussion and didn't report him (but did warn him) about his violation of 3RR while he was edit warring with both me and the other user. I also warned the other user of being on the brink of violating 3RR. The other user (who Ferakp accused of being me as well) was established to be a sockpuppet of an earlier blocked editor who I myself came into conflict on a previous occasion and had lengthy discussions for the sake of finding a compromise solution on an earlier issue. EkoGraf (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Here you are wrong. Milliyet source from 2012 doesn't claim that 203,000 have been arrested. It claims 1,400 fighters have been captured. It also claims 203,000 people were arrested in cities and operations for being "alleged members of terrorist organization"(not even mentioning PKK). There is difference between captured PKK fighters and arrested people during the conflict. The section I edited is about captured PKK fighters, and under infobox, there is another place for arrested people during the conflict. If you ignore Milliyet's 1,400 captured fighters but decide to pick 203,000 arrested people and show them as captured PKK fighters, then you are simply cherry picking, especially after repeating this problem dozens of times in the talk page. Ferakp (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
You again didn't read your Milliyet 2012 source fully, it says 1,400 WOUNDED PKK fighters were captured, not overall (captured unharmed, surrendered, etc). That casualties section of the infobox refers to all anti-Turkish militant groups, not just the PKK, which the Turkish government considers all to be terrorists, and according to them they arrested 203,000 terrorists. I am not cherry picking anything, but it seems you are at this point by ignoring both the 19,000+ figure (captured wounded, captured unharmed, surrendered, arrested) and the 203,000 figure, while focusing on the figures that are for those who were captured while wounded and making it out to be the figure is for the overall number of detained. Its a miss-representation of what the sources are saying. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't say 203,000 captured terrorists. You are misinterpreting if you go with the 203,000 figure. Also, you added misinterpreted the president speech. According to the BBC, he said lost of "terrorists" are ~9k. What could "lost" mean in this case? Other Turkish sources say neutralized which means killed, wounded or captured. That's what I added but you decided to show the 9k+ figure as killed fighters.Ferakp (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The source says literally 203,000 people were taken into custody under the pretext of "being a member of a terrorist organization". I don't know how that can be misinterpreted. But listen, I don't really care about that number, because I personally think its over-inflated propaganda, I used it only because it was the source you provided and wanted it being used. As for the 9,500 figure, you (again) didn't read the source fully. I already told you to read the very next sentence Erdogan said. In the first sentence he talks about the 9,500 figure, while in the very next sentence he talks about the figures of those captured/arrested totally separately and stated them to be 40,000 detained and 10,500 arrested (which is a lot more than 9,500). If he only talked about a loss of 9,500 I would agree with you considering the Turks usually mean both dead and captured when talking about militant losses, but here Erdogan talked about those apprehended in a separate sentence and the figures were a lot bigger than the 9,500. EkoGraf (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MAMODIVIC
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been some discussion at the talk page. It has been minimal. It isn't clear whether the filing editor wants moderated discussion (what this board is for) or administrative action. The filing party has made a claim of sockpuppetry, which should either be withdrawn (and probably redacted) or made at sockpuppet investigations, because collaborative discussion is not feasible when there are conduct allegations. I am neither opening nor declining this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - In the event that a volunteer decides to accept this case, it should be noted that the case filer has not notified the other involved editors of the DRN case. Holding off on sending talk page notifications to other involvement editors per Robert McClenon's comment above. --JustBerry (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - One of the editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet. The filing party has not notified the other editor and is expected to notify them. Does the filing party want moderated discussion? (That is what this board is for.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Pinging filing party Ferakp to answer question posed by Robert McClenon in the previous note. If significant time passes without any response regarding whether the filing party wants moderated discussion, I am in support of not accepting this case. In this situation, if the filing party later wishes to reach out to DRN again presuming the dispute continues with another involved editor, or set of editors, they are welcome to open another case. --JustBerry (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment - I have notified another user. Ferakp (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - There has been no comment here for five days. I will close this case unless one of the editors comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as wrong forum (and as filed in less than good faith). The place to discuss deletion is deletion review. Also, a filing here that states that another editor is in the wrong is not an appropriate filing here (although it may be appropriate at WP:ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Hello, my article was deleted by Ed SwistaTwista without them notifying me. This is part of an ongoing problem between SwistaTwista and I. They tried relentlessly to delete my first article which was finally approved. Now the day the new article was published they nominated it for deletion and broke protocol by not informing me. Which feels a lot like revenge.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Not answering question. Unneeded sarcasm.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SwistaTwista ironically put in a complaint about me! Hilarious that they are the one in the wrong and they are complaining against me.
How do you think we can help?
Republish the Ed Brown Boxer article and lets have a fair discussion about the merit of the article and the notability of the subject.
Summary of dispute by SwisterTwister
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ed Brown (boxer) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - User:DanHamilton1998 - Do not deliberately misspell the name of an opposing editor either to insult them or to try to be cutesy. I see that you were advised to come here, but there may have been a good-faith mistake. This is not the place to rehash a deletion. You may either go to deletion review to request that the deletion be overturned (but it appears to have been a valid consensus close) or you may go to Requests for Undeletion to request that the deleted article be restored to draft space or user space. Also, do not request resolution of disputes at two or more noticeboards at the same time; it is forum shopping, and there is already a case at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - This tape will self-destruct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Resolved For their awareness, I have notified User:SwisterTwister of their listing as an involved editor in this case, even though a case has already been filed at WP:ANI. --JustBerry (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Despite extensive discussion in this ANI case, the case filer created another ANI case here and DRN case here. Seems like forum shopping. The DRN case will be provisionally kept open as a reference point until the ANI discussion here is closed. Once closed, the DRN case will be closed and archived. --JustBerry (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
*ωAwaiting discussion closing of the ANI discussion here. Once that discussion is closed, volunteers should feel free to close and archive this case. --JustBerry (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Harry S._Truman
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Lakeshake on 21:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC).
Closed. It appears that there is rough consensus but not full consensus. Any further consideration can take the form of a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
For over 12 years, there has been a dispute in the article, covering several pages of talk page archives. Harry S Truman is also known as Harry S. Truman. There have been slow, prolonged edit wars. Compromises have been proposed such as Harry S. Truman (also Harry S Truman) (May 8, 1884 – December 26, 1972) was an American politician who served as the 33rd President of the United States but this has been reverted, which comments such as it being "dumb".
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk page discussion
How do you think we can help?
Think of compromise language, suggests editors accept multiple proposals, not just their own.
Summary of dispute by Calidum
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I've made my point on the talk page (and others have commented there as well). This appears to be forum shopping. Calidum¤ 21:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This user is factually incorrect as no other forum has been used except DRN. I have looked and have not found any forum that this 12 year old dispute has been shopped. Lakeshake (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Harry S._Truman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Why is this an issue, given that Harry S. Truman signed his name with a period after the S? See the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Could it be more official? - Nunh-huh 00:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer response I am KDS4444 and I am a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard with no prior involvement in the Truman article. I have now read over the complaint and the responses, and I have also done some of my own research into this topic. I have a prejudice: I was taught long ago that "it" (i.e., the man's name) was "Harry S Truman", oddly with no period, as the "S" stood for nothing. My initial knee-jerk and VERY certain response was that the entire article should obviously be titled "Harry S Truman". Imagine my disappointment when I went looking for biographies on him: the titles of all of the major works state "Harry S. Truman". I am sure the authors of those biographies have their reasons, but that doesn't really matter much. It appears that reliable sources consistently refer to him as "Harry S. Truman". I may also find that disappointing, but I am not a biographer and it isn't my job to figure out the reasons behind that pattern. Now, I think everyone involved in this dispute (Nunh-huh, are you an involved editor? What is your role here? If you are involved in this dispute, then please add your name to the list of involved editors; if you are here to participate in attempting to resolve this dispute, I am not sure your approach so far is helping) knows the same story that I do: that President Truman had no given middle name, but instead had a letter "S" which stood for nothing, which is odd but there you have it. As I understand it, there is currently a footnote in the article which explains this situation for those readers who wish to get clarification on the point. I also understand that a large proportion of readers (myself included) expect to see "Harry S Truman" and not "Harry S. Truman", because that's what we learned once and we know it to be as true as how to spell "Fat Man" and "Little Boy", but is having an alternate name "Harry S Truman" in the lead sentence helpful here? I must tell you, it is splitting a fine hair: if I had wandered into the article with no knowledge of its history, I would be dead certain that some careless youngster had made some mistakes that I would now need to correct— and I would apparently be completely in the wrong to do so. Having the man's name appear twice in the lead sentence and be exactly the same except for a period certainly looks "dumb" ("Can't Wikipedia make up its mind? What kind of group-think got us "Harry S. Truman also known as Harry S Truman"?). At the same time, "Harry S Truman" was indeed an alternate name for him and the absence of the usually-expected period, while perhaps not the first choice of biographers deciding on which to use for the covers of their books, certainly has historicity. Could a footnote explain this? Of that there is no question. WP:ALTERNATENAME also says, "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." In the article section on his "early life and career" the first paragraph addresses this issue. Between the footnote and the article section, it becomes very clear that the S was a flip-flop issue. It looks like the article thoroughly discusses the matter, and I don't see any material benefit of repeating the man's name twice in the lead sentence with variation by a period except to calm down people like me, which I am not sure qualifies as a legitimate reason yet (...someday...?). Though I doubt my grandmother would agree with me, I am making an argument to leave the article as it is, with no mention of the no-period-S in the lead sentence, because the matter is well discussed within the article and because I can't see any benefit to doing so. Please let me know if my reasoning for this sounds convincing. KDS4444 (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your thoughts are helpful. On the other hand, the hallmark of conflict is refusal to accept anything except your own version of the article. Many editors of the "Harry S. Truman" side are like that, unfortunately. I am flexible. I have suggested many ways, from having "(also known as Harry S Truman)" or just in the infobox.
As far as consistency, Wikipedia has articles that state in the first sentence "Frankin Delano Roosevelt" or the full name. Harry S Truman's full name was Harry S Truman, not Harry Samuel Truman or Harry Seaver Truman. Lakeshake (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
More uninvolved input: "Harry S. Truman" and "Harry S Truman" aren't two different names, it's one name, the first with standard English orthography, and the second with non-standard orthography. The variation in orthography is worth a footnote, which the article has. - Nunh-huh 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Uninvolved input (please move if need be) This seems to be a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. If that is the case, I would assume that what would be of import would be whether the name appears in generally reliable sources more frequently with or without the "." Based on the example provided above, it seems that the subject himself used the period in his signature, which would I think tend to support the inclusion of the period based on his own signatory self-description. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
(And even that wouldn't really matter if published reliable sources said otherwise, which apparently they have not tended to do KDS4444 (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC))
Support KDS4444's excellent exegesis and recommendation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, many years ago I remember "learning" that Harry Truman's middle "name" was simply "S", which was not short for anything, and therefore should be written without a period. I saw some article somewhere (this was pre-Wikipedia) which used the period, and I wrote in, pedantically, to point out their error, and they responded, politely, that I was mistaken. The respondent who was associated with Harry Truman in some official way, explained that I was correct that the S was not short for anything, but I was incorrect that this meant it should not be followed by a period. I spent quite some time in the Harry S. Truman Library last Saturday, and noted hundreds of examples of Harry S. Truman and no examples of Harry S Truman. Think it's fair to say that the Harry S. Truman Library counts as a reliable source.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Proposed framework for resolution
1. all participants should accept multiple solutions, not just "my way only".
2. the DRN staff should accept that this dispute is over a decade old so declaring the current version as correct is not helpful to resolution.
Lakeshake (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer response Oh, I ain't saying the status quo is correct, I am just saying that there don't appear to be too many reasons to expect it to change, given all the the history and precedent and accommodation. But if what I have already said doesn't convince you, then I am prepared to declare this matter closed with no acceptable resolution, which will allow it to move on to formal mediation. I will preface that by saying that in my experience, most snowballs in hell don't make it much past the 4th circle... But the 9th circle, of course, is a frozen marsh in which snowballs may do just fine. You gotta have one heck of a pitching arm, though. KDS4444 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There should be careful and high level review of some sort because this issue has dragged on for over 12 years, involves a featured article, and involves a high level topic, that of a US President. I have already said my opinion, which is consensus requires that we don't insist on only our idea as the solution but accept multiple ideas and that Harry S Truman as the first words in the article is part of the best compromise (and probably includes Harry S. Truman in the title). If I had my way, it wouldn't be that but such is compromise, as I wrote. If you say that mediation is the next step, kindly do it as I don't know how (WP rules are very complicated...failure to help would only result in this dragging on to 15 or 20 years of dispute). Lakeshake (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note Okay, I am now going to go ahead and mark this dispute resolution as failed, though it doesn't make me feel very good. The next step is for involved editors to take this case to formal mediation, and to note there that dispute resolution was attempted and failed. Please see this link for further instructions (and tell them I tried really hard, 'cause I did!). Good luck! KDS4444 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I ask that you keep the DRN open for a day or two longer because Calidum has not really responded much. He applied for the Arbitration Committee so that means he is an established Wikipedian. Encourage him or her to come to the DRN table with an open mind. Lakeshake (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
REQUEST TO DRN VOLUNTEERS: Calidum has written that he/she considers the DRN case as forum shopping. This issue has never been brought to any noticeboard, not Village Pump, DRN, RFC, Mediation, AC, etc. in the more than 12 years that it has been a problem. Is bringing this issue solely to DRN considered forum shopping? Yes or no? I believe no. Lakeshake (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen any indication anywhere that raising a matter to a single noticeboard qualifies as forum shopping. If there are no clear evidences of behavioral problems to be addressed by other noticeboards, this would presumably be the best place to raise concerns. There might be specific questions regarding the specific phrasing used, and that might be relevant, but if that is the case I would welcome seeing the evidence of such phrasing problems. John Carter (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I feel he is forum shopping because he refuses to abide by the consensus on the talk page that emerged following his attempt to change the article. Going to mediation is entirely not needed at this point because consensus has already been reached. He needs accept this. Calidum 01:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - In my opinion, on the one hand, filing a dispute resolution request at one dispute resolution forum is never forum shopping in a strict sense. An article talk page is not a dispute resolution forum, but an earlier method of attempting dispute resolution. On the other hand, refusing to accept consensus as established at a talk page is a Wikipedia equivalent to vexatious litigation and is tendentious. Also, since this forum, like most but not all dispute resolution forums, is voluntary, requesting dispute resolution here is likely to be a waste of time if there is otherwise a consensus. It isn't forum shopping, but coming here if there is a consensus against an editor is not helpful and may be vexatious. That doesn't answer anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that five people have expressed a preference for the statu quo and just one (LakeShore) is opposed, consensus seems pretty clear but he refuses to accept it. Calidum 19:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - It appears that this case has run its course, and that there has been no discussion in the past week. It also appears that there is rough consensus, and that multiple editors agree, although one disagrees. Unless an editor requests to restart this case, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A more appropriate forum for copyright disputes would be Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Moreover, the parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. JustBerry (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
out of nowhere this garachy makes an unfounded accusation that a section on the en jenckes is a "blatant copyright violation". That the images are also blatant infractions. He points me to copyright sections that frankly I have no idea what would even need to be done (as I don't visit wiki that often). I provided an explanation that the information used was from MY Town's 250th birthday commemorative birthday which IS NOT copyrighted at all since it is a public document! I further related that I personally took two of the three pictures (and ul them thru wiki) so I guess I am the owner of them. The third one has been in the public domain for decades. The excerpt I used from Marieta came from the two page research she had written. Marieta died in 2008 as have many who were involved in the 1996 public document Time and the Town. None of which seems to matter to this garchy as he has engaged in an edit war and undoes the section even though that section had been there for several years. I don't spend much time on wiki but at times will add useful information but I'll be dammned if I'm jumping through hoops. I located my copy of the pamphlet and there are no none, nada copyright restrictions. So for this Garchy to make unfounded accusations then say you now must jump through hoops is BS as the burden of proof is on me! I'm surprised he has cited the 2nd congregational church picture as being in violation.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I have no idea as to what exactly I would need to do. apparently, simple explanations don't matter to "wiki" according to Garchy. I'd post a page of the cover of the pamphlet but I don't see a way to do that.
How do you think we can help?
I don't know how to answer this but the insert with pictures wasn't a problem until garachy choose to make it one
Summary of dispute by Garchy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As mentioned in the discussion section of this case and evident from the article talk page, the talk page discussion here has been insufficient. Please attempt to resolve the dispute through extensive discussion on the article talk page first prior to filing a case at DRN. --JustBerry (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Two users have disagreed with my edit, that Adele should be described as British since she self identifies as being British and 'proud' of it in our Brit Award speech. In addition it has been claimed that references to articles from the BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Vogue, the Guardian are weak (tenuous). I thought when a person self-identifies with a certain identity, especially when it comes to the UK, on Wikipedia is to be respected and edited accordingly. I do remember reading this somewhere but cannot now find it. I have provided video references to Adele's speech in 2012 and numerous references of her in interviews being described as British.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
This has been discussed many times before.
How do you think we can help?
1. Can you establish if using the BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Vogue and the Guardian to name a few, are 'weak' references?
2. Can you confirm or not that Wikipedia has a guideline of taking in self-identification when editing living persons?
3.Can you confirm or not that the sources provided, taking in account how she has self-identified,suggest her being described as British sensible or not?
Summary of dispute by This Is Paul
While Adele did say she was proud to be British at an awards ceremony, elsewhere she has referred to herself as being English (see here for example). So we have contradicting statements from her, and my conclusion would be to go with the consensus, unless there is a valid and strong reason to change it. This is Paul (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Baseball Bugs
This is a rather silly content dispute. So she said at an awards show that she's proud to be British. Big deal. Unless she also said she's ashamed to be English, then she's English. And also British, of course. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 05:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Adele discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Unrelated comment The discussion is not even 12 hours old at the time of writing this comment and has minimal participation. This thread is way too soon. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 04:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Callmemirela is right, and that comment is not unrelated. There has been inadequate talk page discussion. Discuss further on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you think this thread should be closed? It looks like Erzan only opened this thread out of frustration when their edits were continually reverted. There hasn't been enough discussion on the issue. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑ 22:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Garage punk
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Garagepunk66 on 02:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC).
Consensus has been reached among parties. Seeking wider consensus via a WP:RfC on the article talk page(s) is the suggested next step before making such technical maneuvers. JustBerry (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a disagreement going on at the Garage punk article in involving me and another editor. There are also connected issues at the Acid rock article (and possibly elsewhere).
No personal judgements please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Though I do not doubt that editor's knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, I think he lacks sufficient familiarity and experience with this particular topic and is misrepresenting it and that he is using guidelines and rules in an excessive way that obscures the subject's meaning.
There needs to be a broader overview taking into account more than just a few sources--there needs to be background of experience with the topic in order to properly and accurately convey its nature. The issue is complex. I ask that you refer to the talk page of the article for details. My position is this: The term "garage punk" is spoken of in two senses: a) when the term is used by commentators to refer to 60s music (as an alternate tag for garage rock), it automatically means Garage rock, so therefore operates under the Wiki-category designation of garage rock when referring to 60s music. There is not a separate subgenre within 60s garage rock called garage punk--they are the same, but b) there is a subgenre of garage rock called garage punk that began in the 1980s that is influenced by garage rock, but incorporates other influences such as post-1975 punk rock, that is the rightful topic of this article--that is how the article has traditionally defined it. There is a fine balance that needs to be maintained.
No personal judgements please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That editors' edits have gone to opposing extremes, none of which are in balance.
"Garage rock" (in totality) can encompass both 60s music and new music. The term garage punk can be used to refer to old or new eras (as a holistic alternate term for garage rock), but, when used to classify a subgenre of garage rock (separate from the rest of garage rock), it is used to discuss post-1980s bands. There is no 1960s subgenre of garage rock called "garage punk" traditionally established at Wikipedia or elsewhere. If a source uses the term "garage punk" for 60s bands, it will mention the exact same bands that are considered garage rock (i.e. the Sonics). Etymologically the terms "punk rock" and "garage punk" pre-date the existence of the term "garage rock". The main term for garage music used by critics in the early seventies was "punk rock" ("garage punk" was also used). After the term "punk rock" became associated with bands of the post 1975 punk movement, "garage rock" became the preferred name for 1960s garage music, which is its official designation here. When sources use the term "garage punk" to refer to 60s music (or garage music in totality), they are using it as a holdover and mean garage rock--they only mean it as a separate subgenre when referring to bands post-1980s. We cannot misread sources in order to create new genre categories that don't exist (or ignore the obvious ones that do).
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have been in a long, extended discussion on the talk page, but I think that we have reached an impasse.
No personal judgements please.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some of his latest comments suggest that he is not going to welcome me to make any future edits in the article, and he has not shown a willingness to adjust his edits to my concerns.
How do you think we can help?
We are going to need outside help in achieving a resolution. We will need people who are knowledgeable in rock music--particularly garage rock and its offshoots.
Summary of dispute by Ilovetopaint
Garage punk is associated to rock music from the '60s (distinct from garage rock or proto-punk) and a garage rock/punk fusion genre from the '80s. Just five seconds of Googling will tell you that the term is more frequently applied to '60s bands. None of the sources contradict each other on this fact. Though it's not explicitly said, they seem to treat the '60s and '80s styles as different "waves" of the same genre. A similar case can be found with Progressive pop and Progressive rock — prog-pop might describe a 1970s subgenre, but it was originally termed for 1960s prog-rock. Content on these articles is mostly determined by whichever terms the sources write, whether it be progressive pop versus progressive rock or garage punk versus garage rock.
Garagepunk66 believes that every time a source references 1960s garage punk, they're actually (subliminally) referring to garage rock, and that everything '60s-related must be relocated to the Garage rock article. He would like the focus of Garage punk to be solely on the '80s movement, going so far as to stamp out any mentions of garage punk existing in the '60s (see below). But such an approach indicates a severe editorial bias. Garage punk most definitely existed in the '60s, and the place to talk about '60s garage punk is, of course, the Garage punk article, as per the principle of least astonishment (WP:SURPRISE).
Instead of simply allowing the sources speak for themselves, Garagepunk66 has decided to engage in POV-pushing. This includes:
Reviewed conflict, but swaying away from personal judgements for now.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Synthesizing a bunch of sources together in order to reach a conclusion that they don't really suggest (i.e. he will claim "in a departure from "retro" revival bands then attempting to replicate the exact look and sound of mid-1960s garage" even though one of the sources he cites describes the genre as a "a retrograde strain of weird, fun punk." Later, a single musician is quoted: "I don’t think of it [the movement] as revivalism." Not much more is said on the subject afterwards.) [21]
I don't believe it's an editor's job to be a mindreader. If a source writes garage punk, then unless stated otherwise, they're talking about garage punk, not garage rock (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). I've repeatedly asked Garagepunk66 to supply direct quotes that support the content he wants added, but most of the time, I'm only given paragraphs upon paragraphs of his original research, thoughts, and feelings. For sources, he links to Reddit, Urban Dictionary, and a print book that is not possible to verify online. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Garage punk discussion
Case Handling
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor. This case is ready for a volunteer moderator to accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Added case filer as one of the users involved in the case. --JustBerry (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - I have accepted the case. I will post comments here to begin mediation shortly. --JustBerry (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer(s) #1
Volunteer note:
Due to the apparent complexity of this case, it would be helpful if both parties could provide bullet point their arguments. If you think that any party has misunderstood your thinking or perspective incorrectly, please respectfully correct such errors to avoid compounding of misunderstanding as mediation continues. To achieve a more defined resolution, it is important that points are made clearly and briefly; otherwise, important sub arguments may get left out of the discussion.
From what I understand, User:Garagepunk66 argues that “garage punk” in the context of 60s music refers to “garage rock”; hence, “garage punk” is not distinguishable from “garage rock” with regards to 60s music. Can you please provide third party references to substantiate this assertion?
Then, you proceeded to essentially point out that “garage punk” was influenced by “garage rock” and “punk rock” around the 1980s, which compares with User:Ilovetopaint’s point that garage punk is associated with a garage rock/punk fusion genre from the 80’s. Are there any disagreements with garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music among both parties?
If there are no disagreements in garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music, then we can continue the discussion of garage punk’s reference in the context of 1960s music. User:Ilovetopaint, you mention that 60s and 80s music styles of garage punk are different waves of music. Are you arguing that garage punk was differentiated from garage rock in the 60s? If so, how? Please provide third party references or articles that are relevant in pointing this out.
Do these series of comments cover the major points of agreements and disagreements among both parties? If not, please clearly and concisely state what is missing. As a final note, it would also be helpful if both parties were to indicate points of agreement and disagreement consistently and starkly in their responses (moving forward). --JustBerry (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Involved Parties #1
Both Ilovetopaint and I agree that garage punk can refer to a certain strain of bands that were active in the 1980s. But, it was this subgenre of bands that has traditionally been the topic of the Garage punk article--so there we disagree. He contends that there is a separate 60s subgenre of garage rock called "garage punk" and that modern bands flow from primarily from that stem--and that the article should base itself on that. But, making such a contention takes the article from its original 80s-bands topic (and haphazardly creates a new subgenre of 60s music that has not previously been established to exist). I believe in sticking with the classifications as they have been established at Wikipedia (unless there is an overwhelming consensus in society and amongst editors to change them). I feel that the garage punk article should retain its original focus on post-80s bands and not attempt to re-define the subgenre. But, I do believe that the article should also provide the 60s background, etymology--but without re-defining its topic.
Judging by his comments above and in prior edits, Ilovetopaint does not seem to realize that there were two garage movements in the 1980s. The first wave of groups were "retro" bands who srtove to look and sound exactly like mid-60s bands (Beatle haircuts, mod clothes, vintage instruments, 60s style recordings, etc.)--these bands are sometimes referred to as "garage revival". These bands are discussed on pg. 40-42 on Mike Markesich's book. Describing the L.A. garage scene in the early 80s:
One's authenticity to incorporate rporate the '60s was tantamount. Scene people were socially judged by their appearance (a complete '60s look via vintage clothes, boots, and hairstyle) and pop culture influences beyond the Sunset Strip of the '60s... For garage groups, their sound was held up to the highest standard (use of only vintage amlpifiers permitted)...[1]
There is also an AllMuic piece called "Garage Revival" covering them. While the term "garage punk" is sometimes used to describe them (just as it is for 60s garage bands), it does not designate any specific subgenre.
Whereas, a later wave of bands came along in the later half of the 1980s, that took garage influence and mixed it with other forms, primarily early 70s protopunk, and post-1975 punk, as well as other forms. They wanted a louder and more aggressive form of garge rock. This wave got tagged "garage punk" and in the late 1980s-early 2000s, these bands were thought of as a subgenre in the public mind as "garage punk". [2] These bands, though influenced by 60s garage, did not attempt to look and sound just like the 60s bands. According to Markesich:
Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.[3].
Ilovetopaint has asserted that there was a subgenre in the 1960s called "garage punk" that was distinct from garage rock, and at one point, he had the heading of the article worded in such a way that it made that look so.[22] And he still has things in the Acid rock article, that treat garage punk as a distinct 60s subgenre (separate from the rest of garage rock).[23] Though his latest wording for the heading has changed to a more 80s perspective [24], it is still confusing (please see my comments at the bottom of the talk page at the Garage punk, where I go into detail about why that is so). Here's what I put in the heading that was much more accurate and helpful to the reader, but which got taken out: [25].
Followers of 60s garage rock often refer to 60s garage as "garage punk" (I often do), but I have never heard anyone suggest that it is separate from the rest of garage rock unless refereeing to the bands from the late 80s and their ilk. The term "garage punk" is interchangeable with garage rock when used to refer to 60s music. Like "punk rock" (in the early 1970s) it was one of the terms used to describe 60s garage--the term "garage rock" did not come into use until after the mid-late 70s punk movement, which re-appropriated the term. Here is a quote by Peter Aaron from If You Like the Ramones that shows how "garage punk" and "garage rock" are interchangeable when discussing 60s groups:
The term "garage rock" didn't actually come into use until after the era of its original practitioners passed. Theoretically, this music, also called "garage punk", was developed by amateurish, middle-class teens who rehearsed in the garages of their families' suburban American Homes during the mid-1960s.[4]
About the Acid rock article. Though followers and commentators of 60s garage rock often use the term "garage punk", we do not make it out to be a separate subgenre of 60s music. The official Wikipeida term for 60s garage music is "garage rock". While people who follow 60s garage are well aware that words like "punk rock" (along with "garage punk") were originally used to describe 60s garage rock, the sad fact is that most people don't realize this. Most people think of punk as something that came out of nowhere in the mid 70s. So, they will read the section about "Garage punk" in the Acid rock article and get confused. We have to be careful in how we apply categories and terminologies here in a way that does not confuse readers or tamper with established categories here. Whereas, if we refer to "garage rock" in the Acid rock article, readers will not get confused-they can click into the blue link to the garage rock article and learn about hundreds of bands--and they can find out all about the etymology and history of how garage rock was the first form of music to be called "punk rock".
About the Sonics: just because one source says they are considered first garage punk band, doesn't make that necessarily true--its debatable. You have to be careful not to emphasize things form sources that are overstating. Garage rock/garage punk has its origins in the late 50s. I've read people say similar things about Link Wray. Some have referred to the Kingsmen's version of "Louie, Louie" as the "ur text" of punk rock,[5] but other artists and bands did the song before them. While the Sonics formed in 1960, by the time they did their first recordings in 1965, they had a completely different lineup, so we don't know what their earlier lineups sounded like. The Rockin' Ramrods formed a couple of years later (1963), but went to the studio almost a year earlier and recorded "She Lied" in 1964--and they sounded a lot like the Ramones (in 1964!). [26] That takes nothing from the Sonics--they have as much reaon as anyone to get the credit, but generally I shy away from giving one band all credit for starting a genre, particularly one of unconscious origins, like garage rock/garage punk. It helps to have a little experience covering a topic and knowing the topography. There is a lot to consider.
I beg to differ with the "disruptive editing" comment above. I was trying to do my job and make a necessary correction to avoid confusion amongst readers and make sure Wikipedia genres are properly represented. Though in the talk page discussion I did use the Urban Dictionary, I also quoted from two published books and made references to the MTV Iggy article. I also made clarifications about the content in the Guardian article, which uses "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock. When discussing 60s garage bands, or garage rock as a whole (old or new), the term "garage punk" can be used interchangeably with what we here at Wikipedia classify as garage rock. Garage punk is only thought of as a separate subgenre of garage rock when references the really loud, hard bands of the late 80s and 90s. I also have a problem with contentions such as "original research" and "point of view", when I am trying to be accurate and objective. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
References
^Markesich, Mike (2012). Teenbeat Mayhem (1st ed.). Branford, Connecticut: Priceless Info Press. p. 41. ISBN978-0-985-64825-1.
^Marlesich 2012, pp. 42–43. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMarlesich2012 (help)
^Aaron, Peter (2013). If You Like the Ramones. 7777 West Bluemound Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Backbeat Books, and imprint of Hal Leonard Corportation. p. 52. ISBN978-1-61713-457-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^Sabin, Roger (1999). Punk Rock: So What?: the Cultural Legacy of Punk. London: Routledge. p. 157. ISBN0-415-17030-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Are there any disagreements with garage punk’s connotation in the context of 1980s music among both parties?
I don't believe so.
User:Ilovetopaint, you mention that 60s and 80s music styles of garage punk are different waves of music. Are you arguing that garage punk was differentiated from garage rock in the 60s? If so, how?
No. I am arguing that garage rock/punk are implicitly different, but explicitly the same. Regardless of whether sources are using the term for '60s or '80s music, none of them unequivocally state "garage punk is distinguished from garage rock". They say the opposite; that the terms are interchangeable. Some also say that there was a garage punk movement that developed in the '80s. Those sources have been referenced above.
Basically, my core point is that we don't have a single source (yet) that explicitly notes distinctions between '60s garage punk and '80s garage punk. This is the clearest, most comprehensive statement I could find on the subject:
Every now and then people start talking about garage punk, or, more likely, about garage rock or garage revival. In the early 2000′s there was a lot of hype about such bands [...] It’s rebranded slightly by the media every time, but the first and most important thing to know about garage punk, is that in between bouts of hype, it doesn’t really go anywhere. Like a weird, freakishly resilient punk beast, the music flourishes in dark corners, except for when it’s in SPIN. [...] For [Arish] Khan, who believes that there were garage punk bands even back in the ’60s, his mission has more to do with the present than the past: “I don’t think of it as revivalism. I think of it as carrying on a tradition of rock ‘n’ roll, without being purist, because I think rock ‘n’ roll is very important, like, for now. It’s sad when I see kids who have no idea who Chuck Berry is.”[27]
The bolded text shows us that at least Arish Khan believes '60s garage punk does exist in the context of '80s garage punk.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
We may not have a source directly contrasting late-80s/90s garage punk from the term's use regarding 60s bands, but we do have a source above contrasting it against the strict revivalist movement of the early 80s (and you'll notice that in Kahn's statement, he is trying to distance himself from the strict "retro revivalist" kinds of bands). I don't think it is necessary to have that "smoking gun" for the 60s, because if we fail to automatically make that distinction, then we'll end up creating a new 60s subgenre of garage called "garage punk". Since the use of the term "garage punk" predates the use of "garage rock" (going back to 1972), but since "garage rock" became the overriding term later on, we are safe to assume that the sources are using "garage punk" interchangeably with garage rock, when referring to the 60s. But, yes there is a connection to the late 80s/90s. Kahn wants to be part of that same tradition--rooted in the 60s, but letting it evolve beyond the '60s. So, he'd be part of that wave who got tagged "garage punk". In the public mind (at least in the late 80s & 90s), people were using that tag a lot, probably not knowing about the 60s influence. I have no doubt in my mind that the musicians, themselves, didn't want to create a new subgenre--just to update garage rock. But, public perceptions are a powerful thing and people love labels. I hate having to argue about labels. But, I just don't want people to get confused, that's all. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
However, "correcting" the sources is not a solution. I find it suspicious how you go back to the same Markesich sentence — it is one of only two direct quotes that you have pasted from the book. What exactly does he say before and after? What does he say about garage revival?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't correct the source, but rather find alternate wording that takes the broader view into account, but find additional sources that corroborate the broader view--I should have added a couple of additional sources about the Sonics' influence, which is no doubt, very strong. Concerning the garage revival (beforehand on pg. 40-42) Markesich goes into detail about the garage revival bands of the early 80s. On pg. 40, he begins by mentioning the first "revival" band, the Droogs (from Los Angeles) who began doing a mid-60s revival in 1972. Tey were almost ten years ahead of other such bands, but by the time a revival scene got going in L.A. in the early 1980s, the Droogs ahd moved on to other musical styles. Greg Shaw, who was one of the earliest garage writers in the early 70s (at the time the word "punk rock" was being used for garage), started Bomp Records, where in the late 70s, he released the first voulume of the Pebbles series. He actively supported the revival bands of the early 80s, and he opened the Cavern Club in L.A. and formed the Vox label to provide an outlet for these bands. Markesich describes the L.A. scene as revivalist almost to the extreme. The bands and people in the scene were demanded a very strict adherence to the exact look and sound of mid-60s bands--adopting the circa-1966 Sunset Strip look (i.e. the way the Chocolate Watchbandthe looked in the movie Riot on Sunset Strip) was de rigueur. On pg. 41, he notes the scene was very insular and judgmental--people were expected to act and look an exact "retro" part. He mentions some of bands from Southern California who recorded for Vox such as the Crawdaddys, the Pandoras, the Gravedigger V (pg. 41). Later on the page he mentions the New York revival scene of the early 80s, with bands such as the Fuzztones, and the Vipers. At the end of the page he mentions the Boston scene, with bands such as the Lyres. On page 42, he discusses the Chesterfield Kings, from Rochester, and then mentions that there were retr-garage scenes in Europe and Canada. At the bottom of page. 42, he discusses how there was a move away from strict revivalism:
...grous who originally swore allegiance to the sounds of Pebbles and the Chocolate Watchband headed down more psychedelic and harder rock avenues. It seemed only natural that most groups would not last of stay interested playing the exact '60s sound over and over for any lengthy period of time without incorporating change.
Then, at the top of page 43, Markesich mentions (in the quote I provided before on a few occasions) how a new hybrid emerged in the late 80s that got tagged "garage punk"--bands taking the garage influence but adding other influences and louder sounds into the mix. It was this particular post-revival subgenre of bands that the Garage punk article was originally intended to spotlight. But, he does not say much more after that about the later "garage punk" movement--Markesich is a strict revivalist--he has played in several revival bands. On pg. 43, he goes on to discuss 60s compilations, because his main focus in the book is the original 60s recordings. Incidentally, I'm not putting Markesich on a pedestal--I merely selected his quote about the late 80s/90s garage punk subgenre, because it coincided with how the article had been written for years, and how the subgenre category had been established at Wikipedia. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
"... We shouldn't correct the source, but rather find alternate wording that takes the broader view into account, but find additional sources that corroborate the broader view"
This is a very grey area that brushes against WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. The kind of edits that you've been trying to make have been like this:
Source 1: Lauren drank a glass of water.
Source 2: People sometimes drink water when they're thirsty.
Text: Lauren drank a glass of water to quench her thirst.[1][2]
The truth: Lauren was not thirsty. She had a scratchy throat.
Also, you could have just written "Markesich talks about specific local scenes". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the syllogism that was posed above would only be so of there hadn't been so many other things written. Anyway, what if one makes the mistake of focusing exclusively on a source where the writer opines that she was thirsty, but in truth she actually had a scratchy throat--then what would you do? There may be other sources that could be more helpful--and knowing about more about her situation might be helpful. The problem is that sometimes Wiki editors can latch themselves onto to certain statements in certain sources, but fail to see the truth of the matter, because they haven't read enough about a topic.
In the statement about the Sonics, I was only taking what was, in the source, an overstatement (that lacked enough other supporting testimonies) and made it more objective and understated. And, I admitted above that I should have found other sources when I changed it. One can find plenty of articles testifying to the Sonics' influence, but most will not go as far as to say they were the first band of a this particular subgenre--just a major influnce.
The MTV article attests to their influence and even has someone commenting that they were "more punk than the Sex Pistols", which is also an overstatement--but it does not say they were the first band of this subgenre. I could write "According to so and so, they are more punk than the Sex Pistols", and put that in a caption under the picture on the side, but would that be a good judgment on my part? Just because one person says something doesn't make it necessarily so.
When I write for Wikipedia, I'm not engaging in synthetic reasoning but summary. In sitiations like this I'm aiming not at synthesis, but synopsis. I don't try to come up with any new theories or hypothesis. I'm just trying to render an accurate portrayal of a musical genre, based on what I have read and learned from a multiplicity of sources I have encountered, using selected sources to convey the broader consensus.
If you're dealing with a straightforward biographical situation--i.e. when dealing with a linear timeline--a literalist method is perfect--all you need is one or two sources to verify a straightforward fact.
But, when you're dealing with broad topic in a genre article that must accurately explain how a genre of music is defined--and an article dealing with multiple players and personalities from different places (and in some cases placing them into a historical context), a method that is too narrowly-focused can actually have the inverse effect of leading into a blind alley.
Just because a particular source is reliable doesn't meant that it is infallible. Writers of sources have opinions too, and we have to sometimes be on the lookout for their POV as well. And, I don't know where you got the pretext for the current lead sentence ("Garage punk is a rock subgenre that evokes characteristics identified with punk rock")--it has nothing to do with what Markesich or the MTV Iggy sources say and it does nothing to properly characterize the subgenre or properly introduce the topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
"I think the Sonics are more punk than the Sex Pistols" is an individual's opinion. "Sometimes considered to be the first garage punk band" is an observation on general perception. These examples are not equatable. And Laura Ansil (the Mxdwn author) wrote nothing about the Sonics influencing modern garage punk. From the article alone, you would have no idea that other garage punk bands still existed beyond the album she was reviewing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer(s) #2
Volunteer note: I am inviting DRN volunteers to comment. An RFC may be needed to mediate this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Involved Parties #2
Influencing modern garage punk but not founding it. Ansil overstates when she says "Considered by many to be the first ever garage punk band..." I've read no other source that has ever identified the Sonics as being the actual first of this or any other genre--but rather as a band that was ahead of their time and influential on later acts--as a precursor. Summers comes the closest, but is not saying quite the same thing as Ansil. According to Summers: "The Sonics created the template for American garage punk..." He means this in the sense of being a precursor to 80s garage punk (twenty years ahead of their time, but not actually starting the 80's subgenre). If we speak of garage punk as an 80s/post 80s subgenre (which is the proper domain of this article), then the Sonics would be a precursor--that is the way they are portrayed in Summers and MTV Iggy. If we use the term "garage punk" as an alternate term for 60s garage, then the same thing holds true--there is no way to identify a first band in that context either. In general, statements made by authors claiming that a certain artist or group was the first in a genre almost always tend to be subjective--and debatable. As a general rule of thumb, when evaluating what to emphasize from sources, I tend avoid putting too much credence on such statements, because they are usually hard to prove. For that reason, it would be better to allude to Summers (rather than Ansil) in the caption. Garagepunk66 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer(s) #3
Volunteer note: @Garagepunk66:@Ilovetopaint: Observing this discussion, it appears that much of the skepticism and disagreements comes from WP:SYNTH (subset of WP:Original research). As mentioned in the opening comments, there must be third-party references to substantiate assertions as a whole, rather than observations being made about references in third-party references/other Wikipedia articles. As such, the following types of evidence (by both sides of this dispute) would be much appreciated to better move towards a resolution in this case:
How multiple bands state their influences were
How multiple bands describe their influences and the relationships among them
Multiple historical analyses of the terms' evolutions
As RfC will probably not get enough participants for this case, DRN seems to be more suitable for mediation of this case at this time. To reiterate, please stay away from synthesizing references and mentions in those references/articles and move towards how fellow readers/editors can verify that the terms used are (more objectively, rather than subjectively) appropriate in their respective contexts. --JustBerry (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Involved Parties #3
Both Ilovetopaint and I agree 100% that the Sonics were a major influence on post-80s garage punk--numerous sources attest to this--agreed. So, that is good. But, I feel that it would be better to use Summers' characterization in the caption under the photograph, rather than Anvil's, because it is the more prevalent view. We are coming closer and the article seems to be moving in the right direction, but there are still sticking points. I ask that Ilovetopaint be open to some of my suggestions, just as I will listen to his ideas. Here are my remaining concerns--if we need to look at what multiple sources have to say, then let's narrow them to these matters:
Since garage punk (as the post-80s subgenre of garage rock) is the proper topic of this article, Acid rock should not be listed as a derivative form in the info box. In the citation, Hoffman is using the term "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock (the influence of garage rock on psychedelic and acid rock is well-testified). Also, the this is causing problems at the Acid rock article that are going to confuse readers. We need to say "garage rock" there--if we link it to the garage punk article, people are going to get bewildered and confused.
The lead sentence in the heading does not aptly characterize the garage punk genre. It only associates it with punk rock, which people will assume means post-1975 punk (it is blue linked to the punk rock article). Just as there was a prior etymological and musical background of punk (which most people are unaware), the better-known 70s punk was also a big influence on 80s/90s garage punk--but it is not as foundational an influence as garage rock. Post-80s garage punk is essentially "garage rock on steroids". The 60s stuff is the foundation. But, with the influences of early 70s Detroit proto-punk and post-1975 punk, we get the louder guitars, etc. Another problem is that the lead sentence is not supported by either of the two sources provided. A much more apt opening sentence would be: "Garage punk is a rock subgenre that is a hybrid between garage rock and modern punk rock,[1] as well as other forms".[2]
::::Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.[1]
Then there is the issue with the caption under the Sonics' photo (mentioned above). We can find numerous sources that attest to their influence on later acts, but unlikely no other sources (other than Ansil) that credeit them as the founder of the subgenre.
There is a problem with the opening statement in the "1980s–2000s: Fusion with 1970s punk" section. When it says "In the 1980s, there began a revived interest in the music of the 1960s, starting with garage punk...", there is a problem. The first revival movement in the 80s was the "retro" garage revival where bands dressed and played exactly like 60s bands (if the term "garage punk" is used for those groups, it is only as an alternate for garage rock and does not designate a separate genre). Then, there came the garage punk fusion movement in the late 80s and 90s. Markesich discusses the distinction between these two movements in the things I've referenced above.
So, if we could just get these things agreed upon and fixed, then I'd be fine with the rest of article. Let's work together to get these last stumbling blocks out of the way. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Disagree (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) Frank Hoffman states that acid rock evolved out of garage punk, not garage rock, as quoted: "Psychedelia was sometimes referred to as "acid rock". The latter label was applied to a pounding, hard rock variant that evolved out of the mid-1960s garage-punk movement." [28]
Disagree (WP:NPOV) You're doing a white-out of the fact that "garage punk" is also deployed for 1960s music. This does not paint a general overview of the genre.
Not sure I anticipated this concern and found numerous sources, actually, that call them founders of garage rock/punk.
Disagree This is not a problem. You are overly-concerned with whether people will be confused by the term "punk" when applied to the 1960s, yet there is more than enough clarification in the lead. Garage punk is:
That also happens to be a punk fusion style from the 1980s. (see Markesich above)
It's not that complex. If this is really as unfathomable as you're making it out to be, then maybe Punk rock needs to clarify that the genre does not exactly originate from the mid '70s.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Several thoughts:
Hoffman is using the term "garage punk" as an alternate for garage rock--he means that acid rock evolved out of garage rock--but if you take him to mean it as you contend, then you will find no other sources that speak of it in that kind of way, and it will be confusing to readers. There is no separate subgenre within 1960s garage rock called garage punk--the two terms are interchangeable when used in reference to music of that era. Garage punk only becomes a separate subgenre in the late 1980s.
You say there are numerous sources that say that the Sonics were the first band of the garage punk subgenre, but you have not provided any more--we only have Ansil saying that (in an overstatement meant more to highlight their influence). All of the other sources mention them as a precursor or as "setting a template" for the later subgenre of garage punk that emerged in the late 1980s, not as actual founders of the subgenre (which is a post-80s subgenre).
People who read the Acid rock article are going to be confused and may not read what is in the link to the Garage punk article. As far as the garage punk article goes, the lead section has some things that, rather than being clarifying, are confusing. The opening sentence is over-reliant on 70s punk (which is only going to make matters worse when acid rock people read it), and the opening statement has no connection to what the citations provided (Markesich and MTV Iggy) say. The opening statement I proposed is much closer to what those two sources say. The discussion in the acid rock article needs to be framed around garage rock, not this article. You can use Hoffman to suffice for 60s garage--he means "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock as s whole. Aaron is using "garage punk" as an alternate term for garage rock,not to designate a separate subgenre. It is simple:
When the term "garage punk" is used to refer to 60s bands, it means garage rock--and has been since Lenny Kay's liner notes for Nuggets in 1972 (at that time, "punk" and "garage punk" were the only terms for garage rock). The term "garage punk" can also be used to refer to garage music as a whole (in all of its eras, past an present) as an alternate term. The only time I've ever seen "garage punk" even so much as possibly used to designate a separate subgenre regarding 60s bands is in Ansil--and she is making a gross overstatement (so it would be a mistake to take her statement too literally--no other source has said what she says).
When "garage punk" is used to designate a separate subgenre of garage rock (as distinct form the rest of garage rock), then it applies to the post-80s variety of bands--that is Markesich makes the distinction in the quote above. That is what the Garage punk article was intended to focus on. We, can give the 60s background, influence, and etymology, as well as explain the different ways the term can be used, but we should not take the article outside of its traditional context, and we should not misrepresent it at other sites (i.e. at Acid rock).
So, we need to get these things straight. We are really not that far away, now. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer(s) #4
* Hatted personal judgements made in opening statements. --JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Additional information needed Please be concise, avoid repetition, and provide WP:Reliable reliable (outside) references--not primarily interwiki references. --JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Waiting for evidence to-be-provided by Ilovetopaint in the Involved Parties #3 sub-section. --JustBerry (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66:@Ilovetopaint: Please be advised that the following guidelines will be in effect from Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 5:30 PM (UTC). The time period for Guideline #1 to be fulfilled by both parties will be Friday, December 30, 2016 at 5:30 PM (UTC), at which point the case will be re-evaluated per the procedure below. Also, please post the requested information in the section below (Involved Parties #4).
Procedure:
Guideline #1 for Involved Parties: Within 48 hours, both parties provide at least three third-party sources for each change (general or specific) they would like made, each change should be summarized in no more than two sentences and bulleted (or clearly listed), and each party is expected to avoid WP:SYNTH.
If guidelines are NOT met: Case will be closed as failed. *(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)
If only one party meets guidelines: Case will be closed as failed. Though this may not be ideal, proper mediation cannot begin until both parties have met the guidelines. *(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)
If guidelines are met:
Case moderator forms a resolution proposal.
Case moderator extends the do-not-archive tag for another 48 hours.
Guideline #2 for Involved Parties: Within 48 hours, both parties provide at least three third-party sources for each change they would like to make to the proposal, each change should be summarized in no more than two sentences and bulleted (or clearly listed), and each party is expected to continue avoiding WP:SYNTH. If either party does not wish to file changes, they must confirm that that is the case.
If guidelines are NOT met: Case will be closed as failed. *(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)
If only one party meets guidelines: Case will be closed as failed. Though this may not be ideal, proper mediation cannot begin until both parties have met the guidelines. *(see "Asterisk note" at the bottom)
If guidelines are met:
Case moderator forms a resolution proposal.
Case marked will be marked as resolved.
Case moderator removes the do-not-archive tag.
Asterisk note: In the event that a case is closed as failed, the following will be done:
Case will be tagged as failed.
Case will be closed with notice with closing reason.
Both parties are invited to reach out on my talk page with the information requested in Guideline #1 and Guideline #2 when they feel ready to do so.
The do-not-archive tag will be removed from the case.
Although some sources have been provided in previous sections, other volunteers seem to agree that the case has dragged on for some time now. Although closing this case as failed has been advocated by others, I have decided to provide one last chance to the case at DRN per the procedure above. Remember: Both parties are invited to reach out on my talk page with the information requested in Guideline #1 and Guideline #2 when they feel ready to do so if the case is deemed failed per the procedure above. --JustBerry (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Involved Parties #4
I don't want to change anything about the article. I feel the Garage punk lead is perfect as-is. It explains two things:
"garage punk" is a synonym of "garage rock"
after the 1980s, "garage punk" was coopted by 1980s groups in order to distinguish their garage rock/punk rock fusion style from "garage rock revival"
Here's some sources that talk about the relationship between "garage rock" and "garage rock" as well as the '80s revival scene.
The term "garage rock" didn't actually come into use until after the era of its original practitioners passed. Theoretically, this music, also called "garage punk", was developed by amateurish, middle-class teens who rehearsed in the garages of their families' suburban American Homes during the mid-1960s
— Aaron, Peter (2013). If You Like the Ramones. 7777 West Bluemound Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Backbeat Books, and imprint of Hal Leonard Corportation. p. 52. ISBN978-1-61713-457-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
Of course, there had long been revivalist currents in rock music (look at seventies glam's echoes of fities rock 'n' roll). But circa 1984, a shift occurred in which retro became dominant even within the vanguard of independent rock. The result was an aesthetic that could be called "record collection rock." [...] In America a parallel rediscovery of the sixties took place as bands worked their way forward through the decade, starting with garage punk, the Byrds, and early psychedelia.
An indie-label movement that emerged in the mid-'80s, garage rock revival bands aimed to recapture the wild, rowdy, raucous spirit of '60s garage rock. Of course, where the original garage rockers were concerned with imitating their favorite British bands, the revivalists imitate the garage bands themselves -- so their music was full of fuzz-tone guitar, Farfisa organ riffs, and sneering vocals.
Holdover '80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.
This source says "garage punk" is "more likely" used to describe straightforward garage rock bands, and goes on to say that it may be used for any rock music that evokes the punk aesthetic, including "earlier incarnations of punk itself" (i.e. proto-punk from the 1960s-70s).
Every now and then people start talking about garage punk, or, more likely, about garage rock or garage revival. [...] Perhaps the simplest way to put it is that it is punk inspired by all the ragged roots of rock ‘n’ roll as we know it today, including all earlier incarnations of punk itself. [...] For Khan, who believes that there were garage punk bands even back in the ’60s, his mission has more to do with the present than the past: “I don’t think of it as revivalism. I think of it as carrying on a tradition of rock ‘n’ roll, without being purist, because I think rock ‘n’ roll is very important, like, for now. It’s sad when I see kids who have no idea who Chuck Berry is.”
More background on 1960s garage punk and the Sonics' role in garage/punk.
First, let’s define our terms: garage punk is North American. Groups round the world made similar music – snarling, howling teen angst, inspired by R&B and powered by guitars and organs – but true garage punk comes from the US and, in a very few instances (the Haunted, for example), Canada. It blurs at its beginning and its end – some of the early 60s frat-rock bands and the wilder rock’n’roll groups are, fundamentally, garage bands, while in the late 60s garage punk began to blur into psychedelia. (Look at the tracklisting for Lenny Kaye’s original Nuggets album, the record that codified garage punk and you’ll find an awful lot of music that would not now fit comfortably into the genre).
Here the limits are the golden years of garage punk, 1965 to 1967, and the common thread is a certain sneeriness. Kicking off, the greatest of all garage bands, the Sonics, from Tacoma in Washington.
The Sonics created the template for American garage punk, not to mention crafting the prototype for every punk rock band that thought that three chords and a horny shriek was enough to move a nation.
For a final word on what "proto-punk" is (just in case anyone was confused by the last couple of sources)
Proto-punk refers to a small group of groundbreaking, largely uncategorizable bands who began to emerge in the late '60s, up to the point when punk itself became a phenomenon (around 1975-76). Obviously, none of these artists could be classified as proto-punk until long after the fact; it was never a cohesive movement, nor was there a readily identifiable proto-punk sound that made its artists seem related at the time. What ties proto-punk together is a certain provocative sensibility that didn't fit the prevailing counterculture of the time.
Holdover 80s scene garage groups and the newer arrivals moved past the strictly mid '60s influence, preferring louder soundscapes of '70s striped down rock & roll and punk. This expanding movement established a hybrid now widely categorized as garage punk.[1]
Comment: In this passage Markesich is making a clear distinction between the early 80s strict revivalist bands and the later 80s bands who he says created a new "hybrid categorized as garage punk". Markesich clearly demonstrates how "garage punk" emerged as a separate subgenre in the second half of the 1980s--so lead statement in the article should say that garage rock is a subgenre that combines garage rock and punk (along with other forms).
The term "garage rock" didn't actually come into use until after the era of its original practitioners passed. Theoretically, this music, also called "garage punk", was developed by amateurish, middle-class teens who rehearsed in the garages of their families' suburban American Homes during the mid-1960s.[2]
Comment: The statement above by Peter Aaron shows how, when used for 60s music, the terms "garage rock" and "garage punk" are interchangeable--when "garage punk" is used in a source to refer to 60s groups, it most often means garage rock (as an alternate phrase), not as something separate--there was no separate subgenre of 60s garage rock bands called "garage punk"--"garage punk" is only used to designate a separate subgenre (distinct from the rest of garage rock) when referring to post 80s bands.
But circa 1984, a shift occurred in which retro became dominant even within the vanguard of independent rock. The result was an aesthetic that could be called "record collection rock." [...] In America a parallel rediscovery of the sixties took place as bands worked their way forward through the decade, starting with garage punk, the Byrds, and early psychedelia.[3]
Comment: Reynolds is addressing the retro bands of the early to mid 80s and how their influence spread into indie rock (which we presume could include the later "garage punk" subgenre). However, when she uses the term "garage punk", she means is garage rock (not a subgenre of garage rock) as an influence. She is not separating "garage punk" from the rest of 60s garage, but rather using the term as a synonym for it.
Every now and then people start talking about garage punk, or, more likely, about garage rock or garage revival. [...] Perhaps the simplest way to put it is that it is punk inspired by all the ragged roots of rock ‘n’ roll as we know it today, including all earlier incarnations of punk itself. [...] For Khan, who believes that there were garage punk bands even back in the ’60s, his mission has more to do with the present than the past: “I don’t think of it as revivalism. I think of it as carrying on a tradition of rock ‘n’ roll, without being purist, because I think rock ‘n’ roll is very important, like, for now. It’s sad when I see kids who have no idea who Chuck Berry is.”[4]
Comment: Ilovetopaint mentioned: "...this source says 'garage punk' is 'more likely' used to describe straightforward garage rock bands, and goes on to say that it may be used for any rock music that evokes the punk aesthetic, including 'earlier incarnations of punk itself' (i.e. proto-punk from the 1960s-70s)." Nowhere does Kahn's statement make a distinction between different kinds of 60s garage bands, nor does he say that some were punk and some not--he only says that punk exited in the 60s (and Kahn is also distinguishing his approach from strict revival bands--he wants to revive garage rock, but "here for now" and mix in other influences with it and update it--he is of the post 80s garage punk subgenre).
According to Greg Shaw in the 1998 Nuggets box set: But there is one last thing that must be said. In all its manifestations, garage-punk has never been as rich, fertile, and capable of diverse expression as it was in the 60s. Punk in the '70s was fun, but comparatively one-dimensional... Garage/punk was no mere genre--it was the mating cry of a whole generation.[5]
Comment: When Shaw says "garage punk", what he means is "garage rock" as a whole. A mere sub-variant of garage rock would not have been able to encompass the totality--to be the "mating cry" of a whole generation.
Shaw (on previous page): In between were four of five years [i.e. mid-60s] that Lenny Kaye and I originally (in the early '70s) termed "punk rock," then revised to "garage music" when the Sex Pistols appropriated the term... That's a long way of saying, "Call this stuff what you like." The current term of choice is "garage," but I still feel it should have the first dibs on "punk"... First, it was diverse: there were countless threads of styles and influences, and subgenres woven through here. And whereas today this crazy patchwork would exist in fragmented form and be served up to cult audiences, in the 60s it all blended together in one big, cross-fertilizing youth culture. This diversity was its strength.[6]
Comment: To Shaw, 60s garage punk (garage rock) is diverse stylistically, and he is using the term "garage punk" as synonymous with garage rock. While he indicates that there were distinct subgenres of 60s garage music, he does not identify "garage punk" as one of them (the way it would be for frat rock, etc.)--but is using the term as synonymous with garage rock (in its entirety).
Here the limits are the golden years of garage punk, 1965 to 1967, and the common thread is a certain sneeriness. Kicking off, the greatest of all garage bands, the Sonics, from Tacoma in Washington.[7]
Comment: When Hann mentions "garage punk", what he means is garage rock. He references Nuggets, which is the first and most famous garage rock compilation of all time, which did more than any other release to put garage rock on the map, and when he refers to 1965-1968 as the golden years of garage punk, he means garage rock--the peak years of garage rock were 1965-1967 (so if all that 60s garage punk had been was merely a subvariant of garage rock, then it would not constitute a golden age).
The Sonics created the template for American garage punk, not to mention crafting the prototype for every punk rock band that thought that three chords and a horny shriek was enough to move a nation.[8]
Comment: When Sommer says that the Sonics formed the "template", he means that they were a precursor, not literal founder--the garage punk subgenre they influenced came over twenty years later (i.e. setting a template for later bands).
In 1964, the Sonics blistering, proto-punk single, "The Witch," hit No. 2 on KJR and is now credited with sparking the entire garage-punk movement.[9]
Comment: Blecha (like Ansil, farther up above) is overstating things a bit as a way of testifying to the Sonics influence on later bands (i.e. the post late 80s garage punk subgenre). Yes, the Sonics are the #1 influence on the post-80s garage punk bands, but we don't have enough other sources and evidence to certify that they literally founded that movement (or one in the 60s). Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
References
^Markesich, Mike (2012). Teenbeat Mayhem (1st ed.). Branford, Connecticut: Priceless Info Press. p. 43. ISBN978-0-985-64825-1.
^Aaron, Peter (2013). If You Like the Ramones. 7777 West Bluemound Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Backbeat Books, and imprint of Hal Leonard Corportation. p. 52. ISBN978-1-61713-457-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^Shaw, Greg (September 15, 1998). Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968 (4-CD Box Set) - Sic Transit Gloria: The Story of Punk Rock in the '60s (liner notes). UPC 081227546625.
Question: @Ilovetopaint: To clarify (since you don't appear to be advocating for any particular changes), you are primarily objecting to the changes that User:Garagepunk66 wishes to institute into the article? --JustBerry (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That's correct – he wants the second definition that I outlined to be the article's primary focus, which I believe infringes on WP:OVERSIMPLIFY.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
My prescriptions would not oversimplify things at all, but avoid a lot of unnecessary confusion for everyone's sake. I am not advocating change from previous frameworks, but rather a return to them. I advocate that we return the garage punk article to the way it traditionally defined its topic and how Wikipedia traditionally defined the category "garage punk". It is not me who wants big changes, but another editor decided to do that himself, unilaterally, without arriving at consensus to do so. That editor's reorientation of genre definition, not only at the garage punk article, but also at the Acid rock article (the way the term "garage punk" is now represented there), is setting-off a chain reaction of confusing genre/chronologial misalignments in several places. Those are situations we would want to avoid. I'm trying to bring the articles back to stability. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's a potential compromise: move Garage punk to Garage punk (1980s genre) and redirect Garage punk to Garage rock. Now nobody will be confused by the fact that "garage punk" most commonly refers to "garage rock" in virtually every book, journal, and website article ever written. (I would rather that it not come to this).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint:@Garagepunk66: Thanks for trying to make your points somewhat clearer. Multiple fellow DRN volunteers have prodded me to close the case as failed. Until now, I decided to give both parties a chance to continue discussion.
@Garagepunk66: The response section to User:Ilovetopaint's quotes seems quite WP:SYNTHstill, and other volunteers and editors agree with this view. Without any additional sources brought into the discussion, it's not quite possible to weigh two points against each other in terms of scope, authority, and due weight. Even if you wish to use some of the same sources, it would be helpful to point to other parts of the source to support your assertions, such as "Blecha (like Ansil, farther up above) is overstating things a bit."
@Ilovetopaint:@Garagepunk66:Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#File_a_request would be advisable. Please note that even though the DRN case may be archived, you are always welcome to refer back to the DRN garage punk discussion in DRN's archives. Question: Would both parties be willing to pursue this route?
Likely This case will be closed as failed. --JustBerry (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No need for a case failed. We are close to a resolution and that can be a "Win/Win". I am very receptive to Ilovetopaint's compromise proposal to move Garage punk to Garage punk (1980s genre) and redirect Garage punk to Garage rock. We both now agree that there was an 80s'/post80s' subgenre called "garage punk". We both agree that "garage punk" is used to refer to 60s bands. Our only point of disagreement may have been whether or not it constituted something different or separate within 60s garage rock--but I think he may agree on that now, but I realize there are different perspectives. I'm happy to embrace his proposal.
JustBery had asked for more quotes. I'll provide these as a way of helping move things along. I think that a lot of the problem came from that Ilovetopaint and I were looking at the sources from different angles. I tend to view them perhaps in more of a historical context. Greg Shaw wrote in Billboard in 1978:
'...acid rock of the '60s was originally a spinoff of that decade's "punk rock" scene as the seminal album Nuggets demonstrates...[1]
He wrote this in 1978, which was a year or two before the earliest published uses of the term "garage rock" (the earliest use of "garage rock" I've seen is in Lester Bangs' essay in the 1980 Rolling Stone history of Rock). Markesich mentions that the shift from "punk" to "garage rock" didn't happen until the early 80s. According to Markesich:
Pre-80s (especially early-to-mid 70s): In no time flat 60s punk became a de facto umbrella term for the era [60s].[2] (i.e. meaning what later got tagged "garage rock").
Early 80s: A new universal term was needed to billboard the panoply '60s teenaged rock & roll records. Initially launched into the underground vernacular at the start of the '80s, the garage tag had slowly sifted in its way amid like-minded fans to finally be reconciled as a worthy descriptive replacement. It was no doubt inspired by the location where many teenaged combos rehearsed their repertoire. Once again, Shaw stood at the helm, casually substituting garage in lieu of '60s punk (still his personal term of preference right up until his passing).[2] (i.e. term "garage rock")
So, when I've seen the words "punk" or "garage punk" used for 60s bands, I always tended to think of them as synonymous with garage rock, rightly or wrongly. So, from that, I'd tend to claim that we can safely say that "garage rock" (as a whole) influenced acid rock--and link it to the garage rock article. But, I don't have a monopoly on truth. I was just trying to call it as I saw it. I think that Ilovetopaint's proposal would be helpful to achieving a solution. I'd be glad to entertain his proposal and work with him. I think that we are now at the point of resolution. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint:@Garagepunk66: Are both parties okay with this resolution? Or, is there something more to add or change? --JustBerry (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Fine with me. Thank you for taking your time to help us with this. I'm sorry if the discussion got long-wined at times. Thank you to Ilovetopaint for making the proposal. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66: Not a problem. If User:Ilovetopaint is fine with the resolution as it stands above as well, this case will be closed as resolved (and later automatically archived by the DRN bot). --JustBerry (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
JustBerry and Ilovetopaint, I have an even better proposal: I could accept the Garage punk article the way it currently is and accept the Garage punk section in the Acid rock article in its current terminology--if we keep the Garage rock article the way it, is in its current form. I was thinking about it overnight, and I came to the conclusion that if we merge a Garage punk section into the Garage rock article, it could create instability there. Regarding 60s music, the Garage rock article currently treats the term "garage punk" as an alternate catch-phrase for garage rock, not as something distinctly different from the rest of 60s garage. It only later addresses garage punk as a separate subgenre in the Revivals section near the end, which discusses bands from the 1980s and beyond. That is the way things should be, and on second thought, a new Garage punk section in the Garage rock article could be problematic if it tries to pass off garage punk as something separate within the 60s--that would contradict Greg Shaw's comments above, which use the term "garage punk" as synonymous with the whole garage rock/generational movement (Greg Shaw, who along with Lenny Kaye and Lester Bags, was one of the founders of garage rock criticism and is one of its most famous and influential writers--his thoughts have informed the consciousness of nearly everyone who follows the topic).
I don't want to have a situation that throws the Garage rock article out of balance. The garage rock article is ultimately what is most important to me, and I am preparing it for FAC. So, as a compromise, I could let Ilovetopiant have his way with the Garage punk and acid rock articles and I can focus on the garage rock article (keeping it in its present form--and it already is quite large). If we can keep the garage rock article in its present form, I will not continue to debate Ilovetopaint any further on the issues at the garage punk and acid rock articles. My hope is that he will keep the things I've said in mind for future reference in his decisions at those two articles, but I will not debate him any further concerning those two, assuming we keep garage rock article in its present form. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not for the move without a consensus among a greater number of editors who feel it's absolutely necessary.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66:@Ilovetopaint: I agree--those would be my comments on the closing notice of this case. An RfC/discussion/polling on the article talk page seems to be the optimal way to implement the proposal. I just wanted to make sure both parties are in agreement first. --JustBerry (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, I support the RfC, yes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fine--you are both right that it would be better not to move too fast on any possible moves/merges--I would not want anything that could harm the Garage rock article--it is currently GA and close to achieving FA, and I don't want anything that could jeopardize its status. As for the set of issues we have been discussing concerning the Garage punk and Acid rock articles, I've now rested my case--I see no need in debating those points any longer. As far as I am concerned we can consider the case successfully resolved. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Talk:Korean nationalism#Article issues
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Lack of interested participants other than case filter in over a week. Moreover, discussion active on article talk page. If the discussion loses participants and becomes stale, consider making an RfC on the article talk page. If such attempts fail amongst involved parties, feel free to make another DRN case. --JustBerry (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Christian140 on 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A user added content that cannot be verified and is NPOV. You can find the examples on the talk page. The user also has a history of WP:V and WP:NPOV (the user also wrote the now nuked article Racism in South Korea, see Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea#Problems_with_citations). I removed the content after stating the problems on the talk page. I have been reverted since then. Spacecowboy420 reverted to a much older version from October 8, where an IP added unsourced content, that I immediately removed. Further reason, other than being "unsourced" are stated on the talk page (the first part is not correct and the other parts are already in the article). --Christian140 (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Tried to get a third opinion, which has been denied since already more than two users were involved. Though, it is unknown if the third user further wants to comment.
How do you think we can help?
Making an assessment on the content and state your opinion.
Summary of dispute by Spacecowboy420
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by George Ho
I'm not totally involved in the dispute about the subject matter. Rather Illegitimate Barrister should explain all this, who was also subject to ANI discussion. Also, an RfC at Talk:Korean ethnic nationalism is ongoing. George Ho (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Korean nationalism#Article issues discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note:@Christian140: It seems as though George Ho (talk · contribs) is not involved, and Spacecowboy420 has not provided a dispute overview as of yet. Are there any other parties that may be a part of this dispute that you would like to list in the involved editors list? Or, would you like to close the case? Right now, I am gauging interest (that of more than one person) to participate in moderated discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
But should it be closed when the dispute is not resolved? --Christian140 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
