Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 44

PIGS (economics)

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rannpháirtí anaithnid on 08:27, 24 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute PIGS (economics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs) Naumakos (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is to do with whether the term PIGS originally included "Ireland" or "Italy" and when Italy became associated with the term. The degree to which Wikipedia should reflect recentisms, how to arrive at WP:NPOV and whether original research should be used to resolve conflicting sources is at the heart of the dispute. This version, introduced by Naumakos on the 15 August 2012 is, I believe, contradicted by reliable sources. The main thrust of it is as follows: "PIGS (also PIIGS) is an acronym used to refer to the economies of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Since 2011, the term has included Italy, with an additional I." The copy recommended by a third opinion is, I believe, more accurate, neutral, less reliant on recentism and more reflective of sources: "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Since the financial crisis of 2008, some economists use the "I" to refer to Ireland, and the acronym PIIGS is also used to refer to both Italy and Ireland." This is similar to a version agreed with a previous editor. The latest version by Naumakos is no better IMO. It introduces new questions about levels of inaccuracy (e.g. "Before the financial crisis of 2008, some(?) economists used the "I" to refer to Italy...") and continues to fail to show current (and usual) use including Italy. Sources with quotes are cited extensively on the article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? A WP:30, recommended the following: "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Since the financial crisis of 2008, some economists use the "I" to refer to Ireland, and the acronym PIIGS is also used to refer to both Italy and Ireland." How do you think we can help? DNR was recommended by the 3O. I hope further outside views will affirm the 30's recommendation, which strikes me as fair and accurate. Opening comments by Naumakos Authoritative sources include Ireland, while exclude Italy: The Economist: "Thanks to the tight fiscal policy of Mr Berlusconi's finance minister, Giulio Tremonti, Italy has so far escaped the markets' wrath. Ireland, not Italy, is the I in the PIGS (with Portugal, Greece and Spain). Italy avoided a housing bubble; its banks did not go bust. Employment held up: the unemployment rate is 8%, compared with over 20% in Spain. The budget deficit in 2011 will be 4% of GDP, against 6% in France." (here); Le Figaro, "«La reprise en 2010 dépendra encore de la dépense publique», précise le chef économiste de la Coface, Yves Zlotowski. Avec le risque de creuser un peu plus les déficits. La situation est particulièrement alarmante pour les «PIGS» - Portugal, Irlande, Grèce et Espagne -, où la dette a le plus augmenté entre 2007 et 2011." (here); Corriere della Sera, "L’Italia non è simile ai Pigs. Piuttosto va paragonata al Belgio" "L’Italia, conclude Edwards, è stata tirata dentro la crisi in modo un po’ arbitrario." (here). So, there is no original research. I do not understand why we should include Italy if there are important sources include Ireland. If, then, we consider that: Ireland received € 85 billion euro as international aid to avoid bankruptcy, while Italy did not receive even one euro; the interest rates of government bonds came to 24% for Ireland, 7% for Italy (few weeks); then we conclude that Ireland has much more serious problems of Italy. From the technical point of review, PIGS include Ireland. However, several journalistic sources include Italy: in mass-media language, the term is used in promiscuous mode to include both countries. I believe that this promiscuity should be considered. So it is a mistake to include Italy (or Ireland) tout court: it would be an arbitrary choice. That's why I proposed several solutions ("PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Ireland or Italy, Greece, and Spain") or move the article to PIIGS. If PIGS was used to indicate Italy in the 90s, that meaning changed in light of the crisis of 2007, i.e. five years ago, no recentism. The phrase "Some economists" was used for the first time by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid (here).--Naumakos (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) PIGS (economics) discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'll be assisting this request. The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal and nonbinding. Waiting on Naumakos' comment.--SGCM (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Will this work as a compromise? "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Italy or Ireland. In the 1990s, PIGS stood for Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Italy, but during the late 2009 European sovereign-debt crisis, Ireland replaced Italy as the I in PIGS. As the economy of Italy became affected by the crisis, I stood for either Italy or Ireland, or occasionally both." The first sentence is based on current usage of the term, in which I can stand for Italy, Ireland, or both countries, and the second sentence elaborates on the history of usage. Also, the word "some" is ambiguous and should be avoided as a weasel word.--SGCM (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) If I may help, I first heard the acronym from Hans Redeker, BNP Paribas's currency chief: "BNP Paribas said the so-called "PIGS" (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) are dragging down the trade performance of the bloc." May 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/2790810/Euro-suffering-from-reserve-currency-curse-as-investors-pull-out.html. Months later, the Financial Times, "Pigs in muck" Septembre 1, 2008. "Exciting countries get exciting acronyms, at least in financial circles. Fast-growing Brazil, Russia, India and China, for example, are called Brics, the very initials implying solid growth. Other countries are less fortunate. Take Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, sometimes described as the Pigs. It is a pejorative moniker but one with much truth." Ireland crashed about 2009. --Robertiki (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Yes. The European sovereign-debt crisis began in 2009, which was when Ireland became part of PIGS (CNBC 2009, BBC 2010, Telegraph 2009. Before the Eurocrisis in 2009, the I in PIGS was exclusively Italy.--SGCM (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I just wanted to note that it seams that PIGS is a part of an older set of mnemonic acronyms: BAFFLING PIGS and DUKS (BAFFLING = Belgium, Austria, Finland, France, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands and Germany; PIGS = Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. DUKS = Denmark, United Kingdom, and Sweden). Search for "BUFFLING PIGS" didn't return me any sources stating I in PIGS to be Ireland. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Before the Eurocrisis, the I in PIGS only stood for Italy. It was during the beginning of the European sovereign-debt crisis in 2009 that some sources began referring to I as Ireland and not Italy. Initially, the crisis didn't spread to Italy, thus it was excluded.--SGCM (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I broadly agree with most of what is stated above in this section. The question is finding the right words to express it. A point I'd pick up on in SGCM's suggestion is, "As the economy of Italy became affected by the crisis..." For one thing, it's difficult to put an actual reasoning behind the term. But in any case, there was never a break in Italy's association with the term over the period. Example from 2009: "The greatest problems, in the short term at least, are in the four Mediterranean economies known as the PIGS - Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. ... The drachma, the lira, the peseta and the Portuguese escudo (and the Irish punt - Ireland can be regarded as an honorary PIG) will all make a return as the PIGS plunge for the exit." Examples from 2008 and 2010 are in the article. For me, that's the substantive point. Use has always included Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. The association with Ireland, important as it is to state, is less permanent in character and has been seen that way from the get-go. (And without wanting to engage in WP:CRYSTAL balling, the association is already waning e.g. 2011, 2012 and others in the article.) So, for me, wording like what existed before Naumakos or like what was suggested by the 3O are more accurate and balanced in perspective and avoids over scripting the article from the perspective of recent events. --RA (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I think the problem here is that PIGS has two senses. The first, and most prominent sense, is that it refers southern European countries with similar economic environments (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). The second, refers to countries that caused the Eurocrisis (Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain). If I recall from reading news articles in 2009, the crisis did not initially spread to Italy, hence it was excluded. As the Economist article states, "Italy avoided a housing bubble; its banks did not go bust. Employment held up: the unemployment rate is 8%, compared with over 20% in Spain. The budget deficit in 2011 will be 4% of GDP, against 6% in France." The inclusion of Ireland is becoming less common because Italy's economic troubles today are much worse than they were three years ago. It was the Eurocrisis that popularized the term (even if was coined much earlier), so the Eurocrisis sense of the acronym does not qualify as a recentism. Italy, unlike the other four countries, did not initiate the Eurocrisis.--SGCM (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It's interesting you use the term "caused the bailout". That reflects a lot of what the Bastasin reference in the article says, which has the measure of it IMO. I think the substance of what you are saying about there being "two senses" is right, though. There is the original meaning (which is still the primary meaning IMO) of it standing for the southern countries. In that sense, it is a pejorative term referring to (perceived) similarities of their economies. And there is the more recent sense, which is "to blame, isolate, and shame the weakest", as the Bastasin reference puts it, in light of the crisis. Hence Ireland's inclusion and why too Ireland, as it redeems itself, would be less associated with the term (e.g. the Economists "PIG no more?" article, etc.) in that sense. Teasing those two senses apart in a definite way would be difficult. But maybe a way to begin doing so would be to avoid stating the members of the term in the first line and instead give a chronology e.g. PIGS is an acronym used in the economics of Europe. Since the mid-1990s, the term has referred to the southern economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. During the financial crisis from 2008, the term was popularised as a way to refer to economies perceived as being weak. In particular, some economists used the "I" to refer to Ireland, or the acronym PIIGS to include to both Italy and Ireland, among other variants. --RA (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that it's the primary meaning, especially now, with Italy's economy dragged further into the Eurocrisis. Your proposal, which represents both senses in the lead, is an excellent compromise. However, "crisis from 2008" should be substituted with "European sovereign-debt crisis in 2009," and "perceived as being weak" should be elaborated upon. Perhaps "perceived as being the impetus to the crisis"?--SGCM (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Taking as examples sources that say that PIGS includes Italy is useless, because many other sources include Ireland: BBC (here); Acronym finder (here): in this source is stated that PIGS, in its economic meaning, includes Ireland, while Italy may be indicated only "out" of economic significance; The term PIGS was born in the language of the mass media (a language, however, which is not free from various imperfections, especially in a technical field such as economics) and we should consider all sources. So, it is necessary to avoid sophisticated techniques: we should indicate the promiscuity of the term PIGS and follow the first proposal: "PIGS is an acronym that refers to the economies of Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Italy or Ireland. In the 1990s, PIGS stood for Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Italy, but during the late 2009 European sovereign-debt crisis, Ireland replaced Italy as the I in PIGS. As the economy of Italy became affected by the crisis, I stood for either Italy or Ireland, or occasionally both." - "Some economists": User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid, you said that it was a wrong expression!--Naumakos (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Acronym finder is not a reliable source. And doesn't Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposal basically convey the same concepts? The only difference is in the wording.--SGCM (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps this will work? I think this is a compromise both parties can agree to: PIGS is an acronym used to describe the economies of Europe, specifically the economies of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy or Ireland. Since the mid-1990s, the term has referred to the southern economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. During the European sovereign-debt crisis in 2009, the term was popularised as a way to refer to economies perceived as causing the crisis, including Ireland but sometimes excluding Italy, where the crisis had yet to spread. As the crisis has gotten larger in scope, economists have used the "I" to refer to Italy or Ireland, or the acronym PIIGS to include to both Italy and Ireland, among other variants. It describes both senses, and their historical context.--SGCM (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC) SGCM, I'm fine with your suggestions at 09:56, 27 August 2012. I'm a little cautious about saying these economies were the "impetus to the crisis" without further explanation, only because I can't see a RS that put it as baldly as that (mainly they would talk about these countries being heavily indebted, etc.) I'm not fine with Naumakos' suggestion. If the first line is to present anything, it should present the primary meaning (which is Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). I also do not see a time when Italy was ever "excluded" from the term. Even the BBC source cited above says, "Some analysts use PIIGS to include Italy - Europe's longstanding biggest debtor." Plenty of other sources from the same time, solely give Italy. How about the following: PIGS is an acronym used in European economics. Since the mid-1990s, the term has referred to the southern economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. During the European sovereign-debt crisis in 2009, the term was popularised as a way to refer to heavily-indebted economies, perceived as having been the imputes for the crisis. In this sense, the term included Ireland (and for a short time other economies), sometimes in place of Italy, and sometimes as PIIGS. I think this captures everything everyone wants to say, without presenting any one variety as the The Truth™. --RA (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I believe that full wording is the essential part of any acronym's definition, so giving the current wording in the first sentence is necessary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I would normally agree. As I wrote, "If the first line is to present anything, it should present the primary meaning (which is Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain)." That was the situation before Naumakos and was the suggestion of 3O too. See the revision here, which presents the acronym and its variants succinctly over two sentences. --RA (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I would note that right now the primary meaning seem to be the most recent one. The acronym is now used ways more frequently then before the crisis, and most people are going to look for the meaning of the word they came across in yesterdays' paper, TV show, etc. I just see no reason to make them scan through the rest of the lede, and I think many simply would stop at the first variant they hint. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC) So what is the most recent one? If the word had a single, clear, current meaning it would be easy. However, sometime circa. 2008 this word became a little muddied and doesn't have a single, clear, current meaning. I would still say, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain is the primary meaning. With Ireland being an "honourary" member as the Mail put it. That's how the balance of reliable sources would appear to treat it. I don't think two sentences is too much of a burden for a reader to get a picture of the term, its origins, current meanings and how it has changed. My main concern is that Naumakos' edits downplay Italy's association with the term (e.g. if "Before the financial crisis of 2008, some economists used the "I" to refer to Italy", what did the other economists use the "I" to refer to before 2008? And there is no mention of PIGS, one I, as referring to Italy during the crisis). That doesn't reflect use of the term either now or in the past. --RA (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the most recent meaning is "Portugal, Greece, Spain and Italy or Irland (or both)". It seems to me that fine-tuning the latest proposal by Naumakos may be more productive then altering the structure of the draft with each new revision. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) OK. It doesn't do any harm. Here's a merge: PIGS is an acronym that refers to Portugal, Greece, Spain, and either Italy or Ireland (or both). First coined in the mid-1990s, the term originally referred to the southern European economies of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain. During the European sovereign-debt crisis in 2009, the term was popularised as a way to refer to heavily-indebted economies, perceived as having been the imputes for the crisis. In this sense, the term sometimes included Ireland (and for a short time other economies), sometimes in place of Italy, and sometimes as PIIGS. --RA (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC) This version could benefit from some copy-edit, but it seems to address the issue in full. If Naumakos has no problems with it, I would be happy to close the case as resolved and leave the further tweaking of style to talk page discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I would suggest removing "(and for a short time other economies)" because it really was only Ireland that was added to PIGS during the crisis. There should also be an explanation of why Italy isn't included in some 2009 uses of the acronym (the crisis did not initially spread to Italy).--SGCM (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Agree on the phrase in parenthesis, but are you sure that the details about Italy in 2009 indeed belong to the lede? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, it's mentioned in the Economist article as the reason why the I in PIGS changed from Italy to Ireland (Italy was not yet affected by the crisis, Ireland was).--SGCM (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I should have made myself more clear: are you sure that this information belongs to the lede, not to the section of the article? Sure, this information is verified, but (given that the article is devoted to the abbreviation) the lede is already close to being a complete encyclopedic description of the tern, not the brief summary it is supposed to be. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No problem with removing the parenthesised stuff about other countries. It is addressed in the article. I'd tend to agree with Dmitrij about leaving the details re: Italy to later the article. The details of it can be better treated there. The addition of Ireland (in place of Italy) and the reasons for it are something that deserves a section for its own in the article. A positive outcome of this dispute is that there are now several RS in the article that address the question. --RA (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Is Naumakos still here? I think we've reached a resolution.--SGCM (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Given that user:Naumakos is inactive on Wikipedia since his last comment in this discussion, the consensual draft is based on his proposal and the concerns of both editors are addressed, I close this discussion as resolved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2012 (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.

CBS Records

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Steelbeard1 on 11:37, 27 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute CBS Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview An editor wants to insert excessive info about a former incarnation of CBS Records which is now called Sony Music and has its own article. I tried a compromise of creating a new article about called CBS Records International which I hope will work. No it has not. Norton reverted again AFTER the request to post his comments to this noticeboard was posted on his own talk age. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Create a new article called CBS Records International How do you think we can help? By telling us if there can be one article which talks about two unrelated subjects with the same name. Opening comments by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) There are 1,300 incoming internal links for the business entity known as "CBS Records" which was in operation starting about 1960 or 1961. In 1988 Sony bought CBS Records and was required to change the name to Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. CBS Records International is not a synonym for CBS Records, each division had their own president. The New York Times reports "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." This shows that CBS Records International is not the same as CBS Records. Billboard describes the function of CBS Records in the following way: "CBS Records, under [Clive] Davis who had been administrative vice-president of Columbia Records, will continue to produce and market the Columbia, Epic, Harmony, Date, and Okeh record lines and the Columbia Legacy Collection. ..." This shows that CBS Records is not the same as Columbia Records, yet Steele has been changing links from CBS Records to Columbia Records despite the reliable source using CBS Records. By changing the names of these business entities to imperfect synonyms we are causing semantic drift in Wikipedia. We are substituting in subsidiaries and sister business entities and making subtle changes to what the reliable sources are using as the correct business name. Think of it as saying that Andrew Johnson wrote the Emancipation Proclamation instead of Abraham Lincoln. That would be obvious as incorrect to most people, but that is what we are doing here. Consensus was developed on the talk page to use the terms as they appear in the reliable sources such as Billboard and the New York Times but Steel reverted the consensus changes because he feels that a quorum was required to make changes and that the three day period allotted for consensus was insufficient. The changes he made today were unilateral, first by reverting the consensus changes three times and then unilaterally breaking up the article into new entities by cut and paste which lost the contribution history. You can see more of the discussion that caused the lockdown of the article for three days here. He is not backing up his claims with quotes from reliable sources but with his own original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) What we need is for someone to walk back the cut and paste changes that were made by Steel and restore the articles histories that were damaged. We need the articles back to where we had consensus on the talk page so we can make changes from there. CBS Records ≠ CBS Records International ≠ Sony Music Entertainment. All existed at different times with different assets. All the automotive companies that have been absorbed by General Motors retain their own articles to preserve the incoming links, while still maintaining a section in the chronology of the current entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Steelbeard1 CBS Records International was Columbia Records' international arm founded in 1962 to release recordings on the CBS label as EMI's Columbia Graphophone Company unit owned the Columbia Records trademark outside North America. The "CBS Records" entity Norton is referring to was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment on January 1, 1991. CBS Records was the name of both the record company and the record label. The record label was also officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991 after Sony acquired the rights to the trademark from EMI. Norton still does not understand that the history of the CBS Records company prior to 1991 properly belongs in the Sony Music article. I have created a compromise solution by creating a CBS Records disambig page. The purpose of disambig pages, of course, is to direct readers to the correct article and to alert editors whose wikilinks go to the wrong article to correct the link(s). I've been doing that since the 2006 CBS Records article was created. I've also had to do this regarding links to Columbia Records which should go to the unaffiliated former EMI label of the same name called Columbia Graphophone Company. The current CBS Records (2006) is not affiliated with any former CBS Records entity that is currently owned by Sony Music and therefore requires a separate article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC) CBS Records discussion Hello! I'm a DRN volunteer and I'll be assisting this request. The dispute resolution noticeboard is informal and nonbinding. Waiting on Richard Arthur Norton's comment.--SGCM (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Hi! I'm also a DRN volunteer and will be assisting SGCM in mediating this dispute. Electric Catfish 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to be opening this dispute now. Electric Catfish 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC) You asked us to tell you if you can make 1 article about 2 unrelated subjects with the same name. Usually, if 2 people share the same name, the name is made into a disambiguation page and the articles have the name followed by what the person is in parentheses. For example, Joseph West is a disambiguation page, and it lists different Joe Wests. The umpire's page is called Joe West (umpire), while the ex-governor's page is called Joseph West (Governor) . Any other questions? Electric Catfish 13:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) That answers my question. A CBS Records disambig page has been started. The CBS Records article currently redirects to the disambig page. Any attempt by Norton to revert to the article he created will be immediately reverted back to the disambig page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) So, if it's okay with Norton, I'm going to mark this dispute for a review by another DRN volunteer who will close it. Electric Catfish 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hello! I'm another DRN volunteer and I endorse this resolution. Still, I would prefer to hear from Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) before closing this case. I notified him. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The problem still is CBS Records ≠ CBS Records International ≠ Columbia Records. The New York Times reports: "Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." So we have concurrent presidents of each entity. We now have 1,300 incoming links to a disambiguation page instead of the proper entity "CBS Records" headed by Clive Davis. Business organizations are complex so we have to go with the reliable sources and not unreferenced original research. Clive Davis held multiple positions including heading Columbia Records. These changes should not have been made while Dispute resolution was going on here. They should not have been made against consensus at the CBS Records talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Norton STILL DOES NOT GET IT. The CBS Records which Mr. Yetnikoff headed no longer goes by that name, it goes by the name Sony Music Entertainment. The CBS Records International article was created because it has its own history that goes back to 1960 when the American Columbia Records wanted to take control of their international distribution. Again, the reason for disambig pages is to aid in correcting Wikilinks that go to the wrong article. Remember that the company headed by Clive Davis is the 1960s and 1970s NOW goes by the Sony Music name, NOT CBS Records. So the corrected wikilink would be [[Sony Music|CBS Records]] and, despite what Norton stated, THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS as Norton could not wait for the time period required for consensus to develop which could take weeks. There were only THREE VOTES TOTAL regarding what to do with the CBS Records article. Norton has to face the cold, hard facts, that the incorrect wikilinks must be corrected article by article. But I'm sure the editors of the articles can easily fix the wikilinks to go to the correct article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Question for Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Steelbeard1 explained his understanding of timeline of companies with "CBS Records" pattern in their names. Could you please state your version of timeline as precisely as possible? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I am not arguing that the timeline is wrong. Let me explain, I started editing when I clicked on a link to "CBS Records" and was brought to the article that is now called CBS Records (2006) and realized it was incorrect. I checked and found ~1,300 back links that were landing on an incorrect page. My argument is that "CBS Records" ≠ CBS Records International ≠ Columbia Records ≠ Sony Music Entertainment. Sony Music Entertainment = "CBS Records" + assets from EMI. The problem is that wikipedia:consensus was established at Talk:CBS Records (2006) (please read it) to have the 1,300 incoming links land at "CBS Records" which had the history of that business entity up until it was sold to Sony and had a list of the presidents of the company and how the company fit into the larger CBS Corporation and how it fit into "CBS - Columbia Group", the operating group within CBS. We do that for all historic companies even when they are sold to other conglomerates. We still have articles on all the companies that became General Motors and we also have their history in the larger article on General Motors. An administrator locked the article for three days for consensus to develop and it was decided two-to-one that we would have the incoming links land at "CBS Records" with a short history of that business entity as it existed from 1960 to 1991. Steel has argued that we did not have a quorum for the consensus and that the three days allotted was not sufficient. He reverted the consensus three times and split the article with cutting and pasting which lost the article history. He is also changing the 1,300 incoming links against consensus to what he thinks the reliable source should have used as the business entity, such as Columbia Records. We have to use what the reliable source uses unless it was retracted or can be proved with other reliable sources that it was incorrect. In summary: "CBS Records" ≠ CBS Records International ≠ Columbia Records ≠ Sony Music Entertainment. Sony Music Entertainment = CBS Records as it was in 1988 + assets from EMI + additional assets added later. We have to use the exact terms or risk semantic drift. We should not be substituting in imprecise synonyms such as a subsidiary or a sister business group. Wikipedia is about using the term that is used by reliable sources, Steel is using his own knowledge to substitute in what he thinks is the correct business entity, arguing that the reliable sources are wrong. I want him to stop making changes that go against consensus and stick to the terms used by the reliable sources. He is also showing bad faith by continuing to change the incoming links when asked to wait until a decision was made here as to whether to override consensus, or to reaffirm the consensus from the talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC) There is only one entity calling itself CBS Records today, the company founded in 2006. That's why the disambig page was created so the erroneous link could be corrected using the instructions given above. Those "reliable sources" Norton mentioned were correct at the time of their publication but became outdated after 1990 when the CBS Records label was renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company renamed Sony Music on January 1, 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) As best as I can sum things up tersely: Steel argues that we already have an article called Sony Music Entertainment, the current conglomerate, so we do not need an article on the earlier incarnation called "CBS Records". My argument is that we do need it because we have 1,300 incoming links to it. He argues all we have to do is change the 1,300 incoming links to Sony Music Entertainment or to Columbia Records or to CBS Records International or some other close synonym. Consensus was to preserve them since they were precise and the substitutions were less precise and were based on original research. To get his way Steel has reverted back to his version four times before consensus here where it was brought up at 3RR and he has reverted an additional three times after consensus was formed on the talk page to preserve the 1,300 incoming links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) How many times do I have to say that the only entity that exists today which calls itself CBS Records is the one founded in 2006. All other entities go by other names, so the 1,300 or so incoming links need to be fixed. I've done about 100 or so of them already. How? Once again, [[Sony Music|CBS Records]] or [[Columbia Records|CBS Records]] regarding the text mentioning "CBS Records" prior to 1991. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC) ... You do not have to say it ever again, we got it the first time you said it, it is just that it is not relevant. An encyclopedia isn't about "now" it is about now and about the past. The 1,300 incoming links are to the previous entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Although CBS Records was renamed to Sony Music Entertainment, having an article on the earlier iterations of a company is not unheard of. Computing Tabulating Recording Company and IBM, as an example. American Record Corporation, which is an earlier iteration of the Sony CBS Records, also has its own article. The new page should then be linked on the disambiguation page that Steelbeard1 created.--SGCM (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) ...and such a new page has already been created, CBS Records International regarding the international arm of Columbia Records which was launched in 1962. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC) This source says there was a president of CBS Records and at the same time a president of CBS Records International, so CBS Records International ≠ CBS Records: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC) That doesn't include pre-1960 CBS Records, does it?--SGCM (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) What pre-1960 CBS Records??? The Columbia Broadcasting System did not use the "CBS Records" brand until 1962 when CBS Records International was launched. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Just looked it up, apparantely when ARC was acquired by CBS in 1938, the company was renamed the Columbia Recording Corporation. Perhaps creating a separate article for that will satisfy Richard Arthur Norton's concerns.--SGCM (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Now that is getting anal retentive. While the official name of Atlantic Records is Atlantic Recording Corporation, the article name is still Atlantic Records. That is getting too silly Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) It technically is a separate entity from Columbia Records, a label which still operates today, and CBS Records International, which didn't begin until 1962. The link could be redirected to ARC, which is another option. I'm trying to address Richard Arthur Norton's concerns here, to reach a compromise between both parties. Disputes over technicalities are basically the bread and butter of DRN (just look at the other disputes on this page!), so it isn't surprising. ;)--SGCM (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Another interesting point, the Columbia Recording Corporation was renamed to CBS Records in 1953. So there was a CBS Records prior to CBS Records International.--SGCM (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Any linked proof of the existence of a "CBS Records" entity prior to 1961? Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Probably it is time to collect evidence? References, supporting the fate of this or that "CBS Records"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC) "After the acquisition, another name change was instituted, and the company was known as the Columbia Recording Corporation until a second change took place in 1953 when CBS Records was established as a Division of CBS, Inc." From the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society: Volume 38. Google books has a snippet to verify it, but the preview's not available.--SGCM (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary break This 1959 Billboard piece at [1] mentioned Epic and Columbia president Goddard Lieberson but no mention of a "CBS Records." Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) See here. The snippet for the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.--SGCM (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) That link is not trustworthy as it does not show the whole page and the journal in question was published in 1990. The trustworthy links are for old publications produced prior to 1960 such as the Billboard magazine articles I like to show. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The Billboard magazine article only mentions the label, but not the subsidiary that owns it. Either way, can we agree that the Columbia Recording Corporation predates CBS Records International? I think that creating a separate article for the Columbia Recording Corporation solves the issues raised by the other party.--SGCM (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC) But "Columbia Recording Corp" is still basically Columbia Records? Remember the ATlantic Records comparison I used to shoot down your argument. They had an in-house publication published by "Columbia Records Inc" such as this one published in 1959 at [2] which allows you to search for text. Nothing mentioning "CBS Records" as I already checked. As for the Billboard link I provided above, scroll down to page 7 to look at the ad for the then new Johnny Cash single. Below the Columbia Records logo, it gives the trademark info as well as "Division of Columbia Broadcasting System Inc." Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Columbia Recording Corporation is not the same as Columbia Records. The Columbia Recording Corporation was what the American Recording Corporation was renamed to when CBS bought it in the 1930s. ARC, before it was renamed Columbia, owned Columbia Records, but the label is separate from the actual corporation, and in fact predates it (so the Atlantic analogy does not apply, these are two separate corporate entities with seperate histories). The CRC owned multiple labels, not just Columbia Records. The label still operates today, but the corporation does not.--SGCM (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The Sony Music article gives the entire history going back to 1929 when ARC was formed. The Columbia Records article goes back to 1888 when the Columbia Phonograph Company was formed. Columbia celebrates its 125th anniversary next year and they note that in their official web site. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, the Sony Music article does include the history of the ARC. And the ARC has a separate article. And so should the CRC, if only to resolve the dispute with Norton and the other parties over the issue of incoming links. There's enough to be written on the CRC for a separate article, and I think it's a workable compromise. If the ARC, CBS Records International, and Sony Music all have separate articles, it seems odd to leave the CRC out. There is another option: We could merge all three articles into a History of Sony Music Entertainment article and make everyone happy.--SGCM (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) But when did the CRC become Columbia Records Inc.? We still have some holes to fill. The CRC material is most appropriate for the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No clue. Anyhow, the problem is, if we have articles on some of the past iterations of the Sony Music (like the ARC and CBS Records International), it makes little sense to exclude the iteration (CRC) between ARC and CBS Records International. What do you think about the option of merging all the past iterations of Sony Music into a single article (History of Sony Music Entertainment)? That's another way of solving the dispute.--SGCM (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Without sufficient referenced material to justify a separate article, the solution is to keep all the history in the Sony Music article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Are you supporting a merge of the ARC (record company) and CBS Records International articles back into the Sony article? For consistency.--SGCM (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC) In response to the bickering about consensus. There is no official time limit or number of !votes for determining consensus. Consensus is vaguely defined on Wikipedia, but is usually based on the "quality of the arguments" and not on anything quantitative.--SGCM (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC) You are off on tangents, please stay focused on what we have asked to be resolved. The issue is what should the landing article be for the 1,300 links that are "CBS Records". It is now landing at a disambiguation page. Consensus on the talk page was to have them land at an article on "CBS Records" as it existed from about 1960 to 1991. Steel has moved that article to CBS Records International. This reference from the New York Times says that CBS Records International ≠ CBS Records: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Norton is showing himself to the Wikipedia community that is following this to be TOTALLY CLUELESS. I have given the landing points MANY, MANY MANY TIMES. So I will say it again. The landing point in regards to the CBS Records label is Columbia Records. The landing point for the CBS Records company is again Sony Music. Although based upon the context of the material, it could also land on the CBS Records International article AND ONCE AGAIN, ALL MATERIAL SUCH AS THE NEW YOUR TIMES ARTICLE NORTON MENTIONED WHICH WERE PUBLISHED BEFORE 1991 AND/OR MENTIONS EVENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE BEFORE 1991 BECAME OUTDATED BECAUSE THAT WAS WHEN THE NAME CHANGES TOOK PLACE. COMPRENDE???? Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia requires a proper landing page for the 1,300 links, the term should not be going to a disambiguation page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC) ONCE AGAIN, the disambig page is DESIGNED and INTENDED to instuct editors on WHAT LANDING PAGE to choose. So I will post the statement which is on the bottom of each disambig page. {{Dmbox | type = disambig | text = This [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page lists articles associated with the same title. <br /> <small>If an [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|namespace=0}} internal link] led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.</small> | nocat = true <!--So "nocat=true" works--> }} Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Wouldn't a straightforward resolution be to use a bot to change the links from CBS Records to CBS Records International? Make a request and one of the bot operators will do it for you.--SGCM (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That would be fine for recording artists outside North America. As for artists from the US or Canada on Columbia, Epic, etc. with a mention of then parent CBS Reocrds, that erroneous Wikilink should land at Sony Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC) A proper landing page called CBS Records or CBS Records (1962) is the obvious and elegant solution for those 1300 links. Rothorpe (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The "CBS Records" landing place is the disambig page so that is not the proper landing place but serves, as I mentioned before, as an aid to assist the editor to find the correct landing place. The "CBS Records (1962)" is already the CBS Records International article regarding the operations of Columbia/CBS Records outside North America. Another complication is CBS Records became the name of the parent record company in 1966 which is now Sony Music. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) We have an article on the international arm (CBS Records International) of CBS Records, but not its domestic counterpart. This is why I suggested a separate article for the Columbia Recording Corporation (later renamed CBS Records). Perhaps we should create an article for CRC/CBS Records that operated between 1938 and 1991, and merge the international article into it? Or create a History of Sony Music Entertainment article as a landing page with the history of the ARC Corporation, CRC, CBS Records, CBS Records International merged together, which I think is a better solution.--SGCM (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) My proposal: Create a History of Sony Music Entertainment article. Merge the American Record Corporation and CBS Records International articles into it. Then use that article as a landing page for all the incoming links from CBS Records. Large corporate entities usually have separate history articles (like History of Microsoft and History of IBM), and this should solve the problems raised over the landing page.--SGCM (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This really complicates matters when the simple solution is to put all the history of the record company into Sony Music Entertainment and the entire history of the record label into Columbia Records which proudly celebrates its 125th Anniversary next year. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Then why did you create a separate article for CBS Records International? The problem here is consistency. If you've split CBS Records International from the Sony Music page, you might as well split all the previous iterations. Then are you supporting a merge of the American Record Corporation and CBS Records International articles into the Sony Music article?--SGCM (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Because the operations OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA have its own history that go back to 1960 when Columbia/CBS wanted to have their own identity outside North America and eventually control international distribution. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Doesn't the domestic CBS Records/CRC have its own history as well? This inconsistency is exactly the problem. You split CBS Records International from Sony Music, but kept the domestic CBS Records (1938-1991) in the Sony article. It makes little sense to split the international arm of a subsidiary but not the actual subsidiary. Although it was done in good faith, you should have discussed splitting the article before doing so.--SGCM (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Arbitrary break Can someone explain why a business entity called "CBS Records" with 1,300 incoming links is a phantom that never existed. The New York Times reports: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Yetnikoff Stepping Down As Chief of CBS Records. No single replacement for Mr. Yetnikoff was named. CBS Records said Tommy Mottola, president of domestic operations; Robert Summer, president of CBS Records International, and Neil Keating, president of the Columbia Record Club, would run day-to-day operations, reporting directly to Mr. Ohga. It said the board would consider long-term succession plans." This shows that "CBS Records" ≠ CBS Records International if they each have their own concurrent presidents. CBS Records Inc., in the first significant management shift directed by its new corporate parent, the Sony Corporation, plans to move its classical music ... CBS Records Ex-Chief Barred at Headquarters‎. Walter R. Yetnikoff, the colorful former chief executive of CBS Records who suddenly stepped aside earlier this month, has been ordered not to trespass on CBS ... CBS Records' Dispute Seen. A dispute is emerging over the price that the Sony Corporation will pay for CBS Records, someone close to the negotiations said yesterday. Sony agreed to pay ... He's CBS Records' chief star-maker‎. As president of CBS Records, he has helped turn some of rock's hottest newcomers into hitmakers. President of the world's largest ... Steelbeard's argument is that the history of the CBS Records entity is already included in the Sony Music Entertainment article, which it is. My position is that I find it inconsistent to keep the domestic CBS Records as part of the Sony Music Entertainment article, but allow the CBS Records International article to stay separate. It's either that both should remain merged in the Sony Music article, or both should be separate articles.--SGCM (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) We already reached consensus on the talk page to have an article called "CBS Records". I am here to have that consensus enforced, not re-argue it, if you have a dissenting opinion, it should be made at the talk page. That is the dispute. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I'm just repeating Steelbeard's argument. It's not my own, if that's what you're implying.--SGCM (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC) We already reached consensus on the talk page to have an article called "CBS Records". I am here to have that consensus enforced, not re-argue it, if you have a dissenting opinion, it should be made at the talk page. That is the dispute we need resolved. I also need admin help in reversing the damage that Steel did when he made the changes when he refused to accept that consensus on the talk page did not agree with him. we now have cut and paste moves that damages the article histories and we have talk pages that are no longer linked to the proper article page. All of this arguing about other business entities is tangential to the issue being asked to be resolved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) About consensus. Consensus does not mean there is a prohibition on discussion. One of the purposes of DRN is for wider discussion, by third party volunteers. DRN is not a forum for administrative enforcement. As much as I disagree with Steel's article splitting, I think the discussion should continue.--SGCM (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC) A key admin has settled the issue by making CBS Records a disambig page intended to direct editors, AGAIN AS I AM SAYING FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, to change their wikilinks so they can land to the correct article associated with the correct former CBS Records entity, whether that entity is Columbia Records, CBS Records International or Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) That is incorrect. You made the unilateral decision for a disambiguation page, not an administrator, in this edit] when you disagreed with the consensus established on the talk page. You argued that not enough people had responded for there to be true consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Administrators don't settle content disputes, which is what this is. The administrator made the move because of a speedy deletion request, but that has no impact on the actual content dispute.--SGCM (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Consensus was to have an article called "CBS Records" and not have the 1,300 links land on a disambiguation page and consensus was to not change the precise CBS Records links into an imprecise Columbia or Sony as you have been doing. Steel was asked to stop and wait for someone to answer at dispute resolution and he is still making the changes. It was his unilateral solution to make it a disambiguation page, when he refused to accept the consensus that was established. I am sure he is very knowledgeable on the recording industry but in Wikipedia decisions on style are made by consensus and facts are tied to reliable sources, not original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Again, THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS AS THAT CAN TAKE WEEKS AND NORTON COULD NOT WAIT FOR OTHER ADMINS AND EDITORS TO GIVE THEIR INPUT. A key admin, again, has taken action by making CBS Records a disambig page and as for those 1,300 or so links that go to the wrong CBS Records which Norton claims? Why do you think disambig pages exist, Norton????? I had stated this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN that disambig pages aid editors in fixing incorrect wikilinks to land to the correct article. Although it's fine to be bold, Steel should have discussed the changes before making them, especially if they're controversial. Regardless, DRN is now the venue to further discuss the changes and whether they were appropriate.--SGCM (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC) A disambiguation page is not always the solution, although it is for certain circumstances. There's actually a guideline on when it's not appropriate, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--SGCM (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I was not me who was bold, it was Norton. Norton was inserting too much info about the former CBS Records entities into the current CBS Records article which was objectionable. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed, he shouldn't have done that.--SGCM (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The word came from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Damage at CBS Records. Norton is awarded a trout. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed that Norton handled this dispute badly. It was a primary topic dispute and he should have stated that right off the bat. What Cunningham suggested in the ANI is exactly what NAM should have done.--SGCM (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Summary of the dispute thus far For any new DRN volunteers interested in participating in the dispute, this is the basic summary of the (very long) discussion above. The current dispute is based on two issues. Which of the past iterations of Sony Music deserve separate articles? Should CBS Records (1938-1991)? Should CBS Records International (1962-1991)? Both, only one, or neither? Is CBS Records (1938-1991) the primary topic? Should CBS Records be disambiguated or should it be disambiguated at CBS Records (disambiguation)? Or is CBS Records (2006) the primary topic? Or neither. These are the positions of the two parties: Richard Arthur Norton believes that CBS Records (1938-1991) deserves a separate article, that it is the primary topic of the CBS Records page, and that a disambiguation is not necessary. Steelbeard1 believes that CBS Records (1938-1991) should remain merged with the Sony Music article, that CBS Records International should be split from Sony Music, and that CBS Records should remain a disambiguation. Both parties have firmly established their opinions on the dispute. So how do we compromise?--SGCM (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)  Comment: This has been brought up at WP: AN. Electric Catfish 15:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I prefer it put this way: the 1,300 incoming links called "CBS Records" should land at an article on CBS Records as the company existed up until it was absorbed by Sony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Norton's pitch is full of holes as the purpose of the DAB page is to direct editors to correct wikilinks which go to the wrong article. So the CBS Records article should remain a DAB page because the current incarnation of CBS Records is not related whatsoever to the CBS Records entities that existed prior to 1991 which now go by the Columbia Records and Sony Music names. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (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.

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Andromedean on 08:05, 29 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Andromedean (talk · contribs) Sport and politics (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Constant editing and reversion without sufficient reason. Petty excuses to censor the article, failure to declare any conflict of interest. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Dispute Resolution, and extensive discussions and edits How do you think we can help? I really don't believe the RFC has been going anywhere. We need an expeienced Wikipedia editor to negotiate and clarify when rules are being broken or not. Opening comments by Sport and politics Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion 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.

Bulgaria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ximhua on 04:29, 25 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ximhua (talk · contribs) WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Should 681 AD be added as Establishment date for Bulgaria in the Info box Sources: Encyclopedia Britanica Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53 Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle V, p. 97 R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9 Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265 M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954 Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60 Have you tried to resolve this previously? It was discussed on Talk page, at the request for mediation I was advised to try DRN again. How do you think we can help? Review the sources provided and advise if 681 AD is indeed internationally recognized as foundation date for Bulgaria. If so, then it should be in the info box. Opening comments by WilliamThweatt Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Bulgaria discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I looked at the talk page and there hasn't been any sustained discussion there since the previous mediation request was closed. I really think you should give that another go first - the second thing is that the mediation request was declined as all didn't sign on to participate. Has that changed? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The dispute is between me and WilliamThweatt, I've initiated this here as the talk page doesn't seem to be productive and I'm really hoping that in a mediated environment as this one, we'll reach out a solution faster. I really don't see the point to go back to the talk page, as it moves away from a fact based discussion. As Wikipedia is encyclopedic content and not a forum, can you help lead us to a solution please? Ximhua (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) I'm another regular volunteer here at DRN. What I actually see at the mediation page is that they recommended an RFC, not a return to DRN. However, I also see that you listed a RFC at the RFC request board on August 9, but then (not unreasonably) removed it when it had not been processed into an active RFC by August 25. It appears to me that the use of the request board for requesting RFC's seems to be not working very well at the moment. Could I suggest that you try again to request an RFC using the regular method for requesting an RFC? In your request, which ought to be placed at Talk:Bulgaria#Sovereignty_dates_in_the_Infobox, you might include a link to the prior DRN discussion on this issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I would've done an RFC, but I feel it will be better if the environment is moderated, as spirits run high on this simple topic apparently. Thus, would you kindly consider helping resolve this under DRN? Thanks! Ximhua (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I think it'd help if all editors involved were willing to participate. We can't really be of much help if half of those involved in the dispute aren't willing to come to the table. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 02:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hi! I'm yet another volunteer at DRN. I would do the RfC, as you were told to do, but since it hasn't worked out for you, I see why you thought to try DRN. I also see, much as Steven has, that not all of the involved are participating, It is critical in a DRN case that all of the involved participate so there is fair discussion and a conclusion can be reached with everyone getting "their side of the story" in. There isn't much more I have to offer than reiterate what Steven has said about not having a sustained discussion on the talk page before coming here. I'm not seeing one. Could you give me a link to that discussion? Thank you.  Joe  ₪  13:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I would note that WilliamThweatt wasn't notified of this discussion. I notified him. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for notifying WilliamThweatt, I thought the system will notify him. The issue with involving many editors is that last time this was done (Request for mediation), the editors were invited, then they didn't participate and the request for mediation was rejected, as editors didn't participate, so it is a bit of catch 22. I welcome other editor's participation, as long as they do participate and that their lack of participation is not used as grounds to reject the request. Ximhua (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hi! I'm also a DRN volunteer and will help co-mediate this dispute. Please note that we much get a statement from WilliamThweatt before we can start. Electric Catfish 22:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Prior DRN case on Bulgaria - For the record, the prior DRN case on this exact topic is archived at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_40#Bulgaria. There is lots of good background material there, and quite a few editors participated. The resolution was not black-and-white. During that case, I posted a note at the Countries project to get some outside input, and I believe that two editors replied and both felt that 681 should not be in the InfoBox (instead it should start with 1878). --Noleander (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC) If you look at the talk page, there are easily 10 editors who feel 681 should be in the info box. However, I don't believe this should be a "who can shout louder" contest, but a fact based discussion. On the fact side, every reputable source you check will tell you that Modern Bulgaria started in 681 (I've attached some sources and you can also google "Bulgaria established"). At the end of the day Wikipedia is about encyclopedic content, not a forum space. On getting statement from WilliamThweatt, what is my recourse if he doesn't provide one? As if he doesn't provide one, then we are again in the same situation as with the Request for Mediation (when the other party simply refused to participate). Wouldn't you agree, that such a behavior is in fact setting up the rule: "whoever spends more of their time in Wikipedia and can do most edits wins" Again if you go to the talk page, you will see that there are more independent comments about keeping 681 in, however these editors are not as engaged as the two or three editors that feel otherwise. Please, help me to move this forward, as again this is encyclopedic content and we should be dealing with reputable proven and established sources, not opinions. Ximhua (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ximhua (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Noleander, I checked the countries project and I didn't see anyone reply to your post actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Help_needed_re:_foudnation_dates_in_InfoBox_for_Bulgaria Ximhua (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (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.

Luigi di Bella

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Robertiki on 16:32, 26 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Talk:Luigi di Bella (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Robertiki (talk · contribs) Yobol (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am uneasy about some information removal, and not sure (don't understand) the justifications from the cancel party. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Opened one talk page: "Parallel studies" and followed up in the talk page "Books" with request for explanation about more cancellations. How do you think we can help? Explain me where I am wrong, if I am wrong, anche if not, explain to Yobol that some of the information he as cancelled should be restored. Opening comments by Yobol Summary of dispute, since original poster did not give enough information for outside input to be useful: There seem to be two different disputes: 1) Robertiki wishes to use this source in the article about di Bella. A quick scan of this source shows no mention of di Bella, so mention of this source would seem to be WP:OR. Talk page discussion about this can be found here. 2) Robertiki objected to my removal of a list of published works by di Bella (see diff here). My main objection to such lists is that Wikipedia is not a CV; we can certainly discuss di Bella's works if they have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. However, I object to the apparently arbitrary list of di Bella's works if they have not been noted to be significant, per WP:UNDUE. Review of possibly relevant guidelines for guidance in such cases have not been helpful, so further input on this from outside editors is appreciated. Yobol (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Luigi di Bella discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. I think we can open it for discussion. Just a couple points before. I cannot get past the paywall for Combined effects of melatonin and all-trans retinoic acid and somatostatin on breast cancer cell proliferation and death: Molecular basis for the anticancer effect of these molecules, so could someone send a copy by email? A source about Di Bella that has no mention of di Bella isn't nessesarily Original research, although it might be. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I can confirm the source doesn't mention Bella. The addition here: [3] on the basis of that reference is original research (this doesn't mean anything for other references, just this one). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, can't help with the full text. But I found a reference that makes a connection with Di Bella to that research: https://www.medify.com/insights/article/22532966/combined-effects-of-melatonin-and-all-trans-retinoic-acid-and-somatostatin-on-breast-cancer-cell-proliferation-and-death-molecular-basis-for-the-anticancer-effect-of-these-molecules where I read, under "Similar Articles": "Evaluation of an unconventional cancer treatment (the Di Bella multitherapy): results of phase II trials in Italy. Italian Study Group for the Di Bella Multitherapy Trails.", which is a link to: https://www.medify.com/insights/article/9915729/evaluation-of-an-unconventional-cancer-treatment-the-di-bella-multitherapy-results-of-phase-ii-trials-in-italy-italian-study-group-for-the-di-bella-multitherapy-trails?ref=related --Robertiki (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC) See, the fact that these works are considered similar doesn't make this research related to that of di Bella (or Di Bella?). If the work speculated on his research, it could be used in the article in some way, but it doesn't; thus it doesn't belong to the article about di Bella (or Di Bella?). That said, it might find its place in the article about the topic it belongs to, if it is needed there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC) An automated algorithm for some website suggesting one is related to the other isn't enough. Secondary sources like academic review articles making the link between the papers is what is needed, otherwise it is original research. On wikipedia we can't accept original research (see WP:NOR). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC) An automated algorithm sees what humans shouldn't see ? :-) I am kidding, but ... --Robertiki (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - I've looked at the article & the diffs identified above, and I concur with user Yobol's opinion on both issues: (1) the "Combined effects of melatonin ..." source should not be used; and (2) the list of publications is not appropriate for the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Before this case was opened, I argued on article's talk page that there is nothing wrong with inclusion of list of works. After rethinking the issue I would say that the list indeed is inappropriate in the spirit of WP:LINKFARM. Does anybody know any more detailed document on the issue? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not aware of a guideline that directly talks about how to decide which publications to include. Some related guidelines are: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, Wikipedia:Layout#Works_or_Publications_or_Bibliography, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Guidelines. The rule that I've observed in biographical articles is: for authors, musicians, & artists, a complete list of works/publications is acceptable, even desirable. But for other kinds of persons (scientists, academics, etc) only notable works that are heavily referenced by peers should be listed. --Noleander (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) That's a heavy handicap, how do you *measure* "heavily referenced" ? I would say that to evaluate that you need to do ... original research. There should a more objective criteria. Anyway I am stopping here, I am no Di Bella fan, but I simply noted an interesting connection. --Robertiki (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2012 (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.

User talk:SudoGhost

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mr. Vernon on 06:25, 31 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute User talk:SudoGhost (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mr. Vernon (talk · contribs) SudoGhost (talk · contribs) Mjbinfo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Mjbinfo appears to be one Marcia J. Bates. Recently, this user began adding references to a number of articles on technical topics mentioning a book that Ms. Bates edited. See [4], [5], [6], etc., in possible violation of WP:REFSPAM guidelines. Mjbinfo feels differently, that these references are a contribution to the articles in question, and that since the book was published by CRC Press, the articles were peer-reviewed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Warnings for adding promotional material and COI were added to User talk:Mjbinfo. In addition, both SudoGhost and myself have discussed the spam issue with Mjbinfo on SudoGhost's talk page. How do you think we can help? We would like guidance on whether this meets WP:REFSPAM criteria; if so, we should give guidance to Mjbinfo so that they understand Wikipedia guidelines, and the removal of the spam should be enforced. If this doesn't meet the REFSPAM criteria, then we can also clear this up and restore the content. Opening comments by SudoGhost Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Mjbinfo Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. User talk:SudoGhost discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello! I'm a volunteer on DRN. As DRN mainly handles content disputes, this dispute over COI should be brought to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.--SGCM (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2012 (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.

Mixed-breed dog

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 65.121.228.201 on 13:20, 22 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Mixed-breed dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chrisrus (talk · contribs) 65.121.228.201 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A user has parachuted into this page and made some edits that are not appropriate. He continues to revert other peoples edits and corrections and refuses to accept a proposed compromise. He is using repeated reversions. Despite rational explanations, he insists other users haven't made their point to the point of filibustering on the talk page. The issue is that this page is about mixed-breed dogs. One section mentions "pariah dogs" which is a general term for feral dogs descended from a wild population anywhere in the world. A user (Chrisrus) is insisting on changing a photograph of a mixed-breed dog to one of an Indian Pariah dog, which (despite the name) is a pure-bred dog breed recognized by the United and American Kennel Clubs. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The user has been offered a compromise of removing the original picture and having no graphic at all, but he has refused the compromise and continuously reverts page versions back to his own version. User's talk page shows this has been a pattern on other pages as well. How do you think we can help? The compromise is appropriate. If the group cannot agree on a graphic, the text will suffice. There are plenty of other graphics on the page. Opening comments by Chrisrus The problem seems to derive from the fact that "Mixed breed dog" and "Pariah dog" are problematic terms. This issue at the moment is whether the article should have at least one picture to illustrate the "pariah-type" characteristics that article describes and tend to be common to many such so-called "mixed breed" unbred or neverbred dogs. His edit would leave the article with none at all, and my edit would leave it with at least one. His reasoning, that if he can't have the picture that had been serving this purpose, then he will allow no such picture at all, is fautly. The problem is the edit he insists on does not constitue article improvement because it would remove from the article the only illustration of the "unbred" or "never bred" dogs which the article repeatedly talks about; the autochthonous landraces that have never been been literally bred, but which, perhaps unfortunately, are often referred to as "mixed breeds". These dogs, the article says, tend toward a particular set of "pariah-type" features named for the features of the Indian Pariah dog. No dog illustrates pariah dog features better than an Indian pariah dog, so I want to use it, but other dogs may do so as well as the indian pariah dog, and therein lies a possiblity of compromise. But we need a picture to illustrate the "pariah dog" characteristics of many such dogs. Having no picture whatsoever of any of the "unbred" so called "mixed-breed" dogs that the article keeps talking about is not an improvement over having one and it is more important to improve the article than to do the opposite because we can't agree on one that will do the job. Opening comments by 65.121.228.201 Mixed-breed dog discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi folks, I'm Zaldax, a volunteer here at the DRN board. Just waiting for opening comments from both parties so we can start. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I'm taking a look at the article in question, as well as at the talk pages and images in question. Now I'm not an expert on dog breeds, so I may not be the best-qualified to address this, but I'm wondering where the page Pariah dog fits into all this? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that the question is what kind of photo to use. Do we use an image of a recognized purebreed with pariah ancestry, or a photo of a dog "belonging to or descended from a population of wild or feral dogs."? Is that the case? According to the lede of Pariah Dog, "The term pariah dog (also pye dogs, or pi dogs) originally referred to Chinese/Indian feral dogs of a particular type, but it is now used by the United Kennel Club to refer to a purebred dog category." Am I correct in that some of the disagreement stems from the two separate definitions of the term? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC) After a bit of digging, I noticed that the Carolina Dog is recognized as a "(Spitz and) Primitive" breed by the American Rare Breed Association and as a Pariah dog by the UKC. According to the article, the dog wasn't discovered until the 1970s. Would one of the images on this page be an acceptable compromise? (Comment by Chrisrus removed as it's way over 2000 characters. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)) That comment is way over 2000 charactors, and so could you trim it? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The issue began when the long-standing illustration was removed by Chrisus because he felt it was of dubious origin. This is acceptable. The issue is that the substituted picture is no more relevant because it shows a pure-bred dog, according to the British Kennel Club). In the spirit of Wikipedia and compromise, the general feeling of the group is that because true pariah dogs (not pure-bred Indian Pariah Dogs which descend from what was once a feral population) are a wide-ranging dog type in different counties of the world, no one graphic can accurately illustrate it. Therefore the compromise is not to have a photo and to let the text stand as the main descriptor. The section does not need a graphic, and the page already has many good illustrations. Anyone that wants to see a type of pariah dog can link to that page. Remember that this page is about mixed-breed dogs, and the variety they exhibit. Remember that compromise is give and take, one of Chrisus' edits was accepted, one was questioned. The best solution is to leave the section as it stands, without a graphic in this section, which is really a minor part of the page as a whole. Thanks, all. 65.121.228.201 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Are third party comments allowed here?) No landrace breeds can be described simply as a purebreed. There might be some being co-opted into a closed registry system, but that does not make the entirety of the group purebreds. I've tried and failed to find evidence of the Indian Pariah Dog being recognized by either the AKC or UKC. The Indian Pariah Dog article mentions recognition by a US Pariah Dog organization. That's hardly enough to claim that a dog owned by a farmer in a village in India is pure and therefore not a pariah dog.--Dodo bird (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Third party comments are not only allowed, they're encouraged! Our aim is to resolve a content dispute as best as possible; if you feel you can help, then by all means please do so! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) That's true, what Dodo says. Also, a search for the word "pariah" at the British Kennel Club website just now returned no hits. And what this IP user says about why I swapped out the pictures isn't true. I did it so we could see the dog clearly. Chrisrus (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for that detailed explanation; not only have I learned something about dogs, but now everything is much clearer. With regards to comments above, the edits by Chrisrus do look like good-faith edits to me, and the picture that he replaced does indeed show the characteristics of the dog better. I'm going to do a little digging, to see if I can come up with anything more supporting the Indian Pariah dog as a recognized purebreed. It does strike me as a little odd that an animal which arose by natural selection can be designated a purebred just like, say, a bulldog, though. In any case, I've contacted Roregan, the creator of PariahDog.png, and asked if that dog is still available to him or her. With any luck, we might be able to get a better picture of that dog; if that is the case, would that be an acceptable compromise? Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for contacting me. I am sad to report that Roo, my beloved feral pariah-type dog, is no longer alive. I will look for other photographs that might better illustrate the characteristics of such dogs and will happily supply one, if I can find one. (If anyone has suggestions as to a more illustrative angle, please let me know.) From my quick read of the discussion, it does seem to me that the existing picture has been left in the article from which it should be replaced - the one on "Pariah Dogs" and excised from the "Mixed-Breed Dog" article in which it was appropriate. Roo was not an Indian dog and was certainly not a pure breed no matter how that term might be defined. What she was was a very good example of a "pariah-type" mixed breed dog -- of which there are millions of examples to be found in virtually every dusty pothole everywhere in the world. I do think that the type is so common and distinctive that the article is diminished by the lack of an illustrative image. While I comb my archive for a better angle, I suggest that an image of an Indian-type dog be used in the article about the pariah breed and that the existing pariahdog.png be reinstated in the mixed-breed article. Roregan (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry to hear about Roo. Ideal pictures of dogs for leads and anytime a really good overall look at a dog in dogbooks and breed posters at the vets and wikipedia infoboxes and so on are generally standing and in profile, see if you have one. The ideal background would indicate the circumstances that led to the features of the dog, such as a Husky with a showy dogslead in the background, or a pekingese in what would look like a Chinese nobelwomen's room, and so on. I have an idea for a compromise in which we satisfy this IP user's worry that people will be confused by means of a re-written caption for the picture so that everyone knows we are using a picture of an Indian Pariah dog to exemplify the characteristics of pariah-type dogs in general. If a caption can satisfy his concern that people won't understand well about pariah dogs then I hope he will agree to stop reverting. I tried once today and plan to try again with maybe an even clearer wording tomorrow. That way, a casual scanner of the article will understand why an ancient landrace is being shown in an article about "mixed breed dogs". Chrisrus (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC) There seem to be no photos in my archive that would be the sort of "hero shot" that would work in this context. I have seen other pictures of feral street dogs that would work for the mixed-breed dog category. I will be sad, however, to see Roo — a magnificent representative of lack of breeding — disappear from the article. It does seem odd that her picture remains in the article about the Indian pariah dogs. As has been noted before, Roo made her home in Ontario. As for the observation that the original edit was made because the dog was of dubious origin — that IS the point about these dogs, is it not? Since the article on mixed-breed dogs does contain a link to the pariah dog article, it does seem that the casual reader is the loser here, since the striking similarities amongst feral pariah-type dogs around the world provide us the opportunities for insights into the fundamental nature of both dogs and the human communities to which they attach themselves. My picture was one of those. There were others, one I remember taken in Central America, that seem to have been excised, too. From the standpoint of conveying interesting and useful information, therefore, I think we've lost ground here. Too bad. Roregan (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) This discussion is losing a bit of focus. I think all the information on Pariah dogs is interesting, but probably belongs on its own page. The definition of a pariah dog is "A pariah is any dog of a breed or landrace that adheres to the long term pariah morphotype, has a deviant estrus cycle from the typical canine one, and displays primitive behavioral characteristics." The section on pariah dogs would be better on its own page, or on the Landrace page. Not the mixed-breed dog page. Mixed-breed dogs are not a breed or a landrace (naturally occurring breed.) The characteristic of a mixed-breed dog is that it has a wide gene pool. And I repeat, as others have, that a picture of an Indian Pariah Dog is not suitable on a mixed-breed dog page. 65.121.228.201 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Pariah dogs are small feral populations descended from more ancient lines of dogs, Because of the isolation and subsequent narrowing gene pool, they tend to start to look alike over time. They are in fact, the opposite of a mixed-breed dog - one that is genetically diverse. This text section should be more properly on another page. 50.7.10.34 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC) A single individual cannot be said to have a wide gene pool or be genetically diverse. These are concepts that apply to populations. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC) As the addition of the following with updated caption would constitute article improvement, I would add it immediately: Unbred mongrel landraces such as the Indian Pariah Dog are not literally "mixed breeds". I apologize to the IP editor. Looking back now, there are times when I was clearly not reading what he was trying to tell me carefully enough and as a result misunderstood him and consequently got his back up. Many of my posts could have been written better and I should have been more careful. I also want to say that the cause of this conflict seems to me to be more due to problems with the English language than the behavior of this editor, and the end result of it has been quite good for the direction of the article. Finally, I'd like to ask if it would be proper for me to bring up a few other conflicts there are in the article that need to be addressed before closing this thread, or would it be better to open a new one? Chrisrus (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC) (Note: Signing in now) Chrisus. Take any new edits back to the Talk page for that article. I re-read the Mixed-breed dog page. The picture and section on Pariah Dogs definitely isn't suitable there. It also makes no sense to add a graphic to an already graphics-heavy page with a caption saying that it's an example of what something is not. If anyone wants to add this picture to another suitable page feel free. You might try Dog, or Indian Pariah Dog, or Pariah Dog, or Feral Dog. Chrisus, you mentioned above there was an issue during the original discussion with your use of English. If English is your second language, I'm sure posting on the Talk page first would help, as the regular contributors could help with corrections. Also by preparing additions in a WP program, you can use the spelling and grammar checker. Remember, many contributors are professional writers and editors, and barring another explanation they'll assume errors in spelling and grammar are just carelessness. I'll post the findings here on the article Talk page and see if anyone who hasn't commented yet wants to weigh in. If anyone who hasn't commented yet has a suggestion for where the material should be moved, other than what has already been suggested, please suggest it. Thanks, David Ross19 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC) The problem with the English language I was talking about lies in the fact that while on the face of it the term "mixed breed dog" would seem to imply a mix of purebred dogs, it often is used to refer to mongrel landraces, such as the Indian Pariah dog, that have no purebred dogs in their ancestry. Purebred dogs origianally came from such mongrels, or so says the article, not the other way around. So a huge number of so-called "mixed-breed" dogs are not literally a mix of breeds but are nevertheless considered mongrels because they've not been selectively bred by people. This is what the article says. This can be confusing for many people, and I was saying it seemed to me to be the cause of this conflict. Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This discussion is about whether an image of the supposedly "pure" Indian Pariah Dog can represent pariah dogs. The claim of the Indian Pariah Dog being recognized as a purebreed has not been backed up by evidence. It wouldn't matter anyway. Even landrace breeds with "pure" populations like the Saluki and Basenji have country-of-origin dogs are not seen automatically as pure by the purebreed registries which recognizes them. The suitability of including information on pariah dogs in the article was not previously discussed even when the pariah dog image was, which would imply a tacit acceptance of this information. Discussion along this line is outside the scope of this dispute and should start at the talk page first.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Roo, a "pariah-type" mongrel. Hi! I'm Amadscientist, I'm an editor and a volunteer for DR/N. I will be happy to assist with this dispute. I will read through the information, do a small review of the article and talkpage and post an intitial evaluation a little later. While this takes place, please do not post further replies or comments here for the time being and I also suggest taking a small break away from the article and any associated editor talkpages during this time as well. The evaluation will not be a judgement or take a side. It will just be an assesment of where the dispute is at this time.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I was asked to start contributing more at DR/N and I picked this dispute. However, since you are involved I'll just wait. Chrisus and I haved worked together before. Jobberone (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No, please, do help out on this page. I introduced myself and stepped back, purposely to allow time for any objection of any kind. I will withdraw and move to another DR. Thank you Jobbrone! I support you collaborating with these editors towards a resolution! Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I think I got the same message myself earlier. Yes, to all you who made comments above, I'm yet another "volunteer" here. I looked a bit earlier today, and the American Kennel Club webpage doesn't list the Indian Mongrel Dog listed there, but I suppose it might be under some other name. The question seems to be about landrace dogs vs. mixed breed dogs vs. "purebred dogs" as per the various kennel societies. I didn't comment then because I didn't check the datestamp on Amadscientist above. I did see that our own articles on some of the topics above are a bit equivocal on whether "landraces" might be "mixed breed," and issues regarding WP:NAME and whether the apparently most frequently used definition of "purebred dogs", which seems to be the kennel societies' definition, is the definition used by others. I am myself willing to offer any assistance, if it's wanted, but thought I might let Jobberone know what I saw earlier anyway, and leave any future involvement on my part at the discretion of others. John Carter (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Amadscientist and John Carter, I'm not here to take over. I'm more than willing to sit on the sidelines and wait and see if I'm needed. I'll just do some more review and wait and see if you guys want me to pitch in. Jobberone (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, if you have some familiarity with the individuals or topic, your significant involvement might be very useful. I don't know dog subjects that well myself, and the major issue seems to be about the potentially confusing phrasing. I'm thinking, maybe, it might help if we were to get some further input on the parties, seeing if they agree with any of these comments and of any possible solutions they might have. If, as I think, part of the problem is perception of the meaning of words, knowing exactly how people perceive the contentious terms might be useful. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry but I didn't respond properly to you earlier. I see this issue as being fairly simple but I want to make sure I understand correctly. Jobberone (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, then we'll proceed. I've read the article and I'm ready to clarify each parties position. I understand this dispute to be primarily about what image to use to depict a mixed-breed dog. Is this correct? Has the topic of dispute drifted significantly? Please, keep your answers very brief. Filibustering will be edited out without comment. Also both parties agree to stop further editing of either the talk page or article. Jobberone (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure to whom you've directed these questions. I'm a party to this dispute, but I think I can answer objectively, though. Yes, that's correct, or at least it used to be, but yes, the topic has drifted. At first, the question was indeed which pariah dog picture to use. Then, the question became whether to have any picture at all of such dogs. At the moment, he proposes to remove the text that the pictures were intended to illustrate. He has a point, as they are not literally a mix of different breeds. I have recently proposed a move to "Mongrel". Other ideas are in the air. He's accused me of many things, but hasn't made reference to specific policies, so it's not really clear what exactly. But it is clear he felt I've been behaving improperly. I say that's not true. If someone accuses me of somethihng specific with reference to policy, I'll respond. I think he did some things wrong but I don't care about that because he's not doing them so much anymore recently. The dispute is positive for the articles. It has brought important issues to the fore. He recently improved Free-ranging dog#Pariah dogs substantially, for example. And other such things have been resulting. More people understand more and are paying attention, improving that article and some other related articles. Here's my position: let it ride. There is no reason to settle this dispute. It will settle itself. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Are the principles of the dispute these? Users involved Chrisrus (talk · contribs) 65.121.228.201 (talk · contribs) Chrisrus has confirmed the topic of the dispute is the picture used to represent mixed dogs. Let us hear from the other party or one person to represent the opposing view. Keep the answer brief. Jobberone (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Careful! You might want to change that to "unmixed mongrels". The whole dispute centers around what to do with what we might called "unmixed mongrels". Chrisrus (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The article is called mixed-breed dogs. Are you proposing to delete the present article or to rename(move) the present article? If not then we will define the dispute first and the dispute will be about the article named mixed-breed dogs. Jobberone (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC) See here for my proposal to move the article to "Mongrel". Chrisrus (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) If you have a move page already started then it will proceed via due process. That is a separate issue then and we will wait for the other party to respond regarding the dispute over the mixed-breed dog article. Jobberone (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) It pains me not to be able to straighten out that article, especially the awkward strange lead section. Pity the poor reader who is trying to understand. It seems likely that we will not hear back from this editor again here. How long must I wait before editing the article again? He has made no clear objection thusfar. Chrisrus (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Then I will make my decision from the content already presented and it will revolve mainly in reference to the picture of a mixed breed. The picture removed will be reinstated if possible. If that is no longer possible then the present picture is representative of a mixed breed dog. That picture should remain unless there is a consensus to replace it. No unilateral edits should be done for the picture or the article IMO unless there is consensus. I cannot enforce that only recommend this which is consistent with general practice for Wikipedia. Here is my position: All dogs are one subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. Therefore attempts to divide the subspecies is secular not scientific. Breeds are familiar concepts at times difficult to define precisely. The most familiar way to describe a breed is by its characteristics. This can also be nebulous as well given that standards vary by definition. Genetics is of limited value in further discrimination. As someone once said I cannot define pornography but I know it when I see it. The point is we are familiar with the concepts bringing in a multitude of discriminating variables in our decisions to categorize 'what kind of dog is that'. For the present it is most familiar to the general public to call a mutt, mongrel or even stray by the pseudo-scientific name mixed breed. It is certainly appropriate to go into all the details of why this is so bringing into the article the appropriate terminology. At present I find it most appropriate to continue to name this article mixed-breed dogs. However, the action to move the page should proceed per protocol. Jobberone (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2012 (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:Internet Explorer

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Czarkoff on 23:07, 27 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Internet Explorer 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Users involved Czarkoff (talk · contribs) Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) Ziiike (talk · contribs) Schapel (talk · contribs) Nigelj (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The disputed content is the infobox field |license= in the Internet Explorer 9 article. The browser is available free of charge for licensees of Windows, so that in order to use IE one has to buy Windows license. The title of the license agreement for IE is "MS-EULA", but it is also the generic abbreviation Microsoft uses to refer to any of its numerous End User License Agreements (which differ quite significantly in terms). The disputants can't decide on the following matters: Is IE a "freeware" or a "Proprietary commercial software"? Is "MS-EULA" an appropriate way to refer to the license for IE in this particular article? Is it appropriate at all to use the terms from the question #1 in the |license= parameter? Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion at User talk:Codename Lisa#Freeware and MS EULA Discussion at Talk:Internet Explorer 9#MS-EULA again Third opinion at Talk:Internet Explorer 9#MS-EULA again (the 3O editor became involved in the dispute though) How do you think we can help? Help to work out the |license= parameter wording that would communicate the core of problem to the readers in optimal way. Opening comments by Codename Lisa Imagine you open an article about a new Microsoft product whose license fields reads: "MS-EULA". Can you please tell me: Does the user have to pay for it? Can he redistribute it? Can he install it on as many computers as he likes? Can he disassemble and reverse-engineer it? No, you can't. There are over 35000 Microsoft products, each of which have their own unique "Microsoft End-User License Agreement" (MS-EULA). Some of them are commercial software, some free and open-source, some closed source but free of charge. Contrary to phrases like "GPL" or "Creative Commons", "MS-EULA" is not the name of a ubiquitous licensing scheme and has zero bearing on what the terms of license is. It is meaningless. Surprisingly, this phrase does not appear in the license agreement of our subject of discussion at all. Now, freeware on the other hand is a lose term which means gratis proprietary software. The opposition argued that Internet Explorer's license agreement also mandates the owner to have a genuine Windows license and the word freeware is not enough. Although I disagree, I accepted and proposed phrases like "Freeware for Windows license owners" or "free upgrade for Windows". But the opposition agrees to no compromise and is somehow unduly embittered about the fact that Windows itself is a commercial product. (Of course, I think this is just a political anti-piracy maneuver of Microsoft; in the end, from a neutral point of view, Internet Explorer is exactly as free as any other freeware like Opera, CCleaner or Paint.NET which also need the user to own a copy of Windows. Reputable software publishers like Tucows[7], Softpedia[8], FileHippo[9] and SnapFiles[10] regard IE freeware.) Opening comments by Ziiike Freeware is not the best term to be used as it is poorly defined. MS-EULA cannot be used due to not being a license. In my opinion, either saying it is freeware for windows license holders or simply saying it is proprietary would be best. Ziiike (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Schapel I believe that the most appropriate wording would be license=Proprietary Commercial Software, both because Internet Explorer is part of Windows, and also because a Windows license is required to run Internet Explorer legally.[11] (You may not use it if you do not have a license for the software.) This is despite the fact that it could be technically possible to run Internet Explorer without Windows (for example, running it under Wine on Linux). Because it is impossible to run Internet Explorer without paying money to Microsoft for Windows, which Internet Explorer is a part of, it cannot be considered freeware. If it were freeware, it could be used legally without payment to Microsoft for a license. -- Schapel (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The issue of the cost (as opposed to the license) can be handled by stating that it is included with Windows, which indicates that users who have paid for Windows don't have to purchase Internet Explorer separately. -- Schapel (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Nigelj The relevant license is the Microsoft End User License Agreement (MS EULA) for IE9. I'm told that we're not allowed simply to name and link the relevant license under 'License' in the infobox, because the infobox documentation says to "avoid specifying phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"". I disagree with this, and I have been told that it is because "There has already been a discussion about this whole issue and a consensus has previously been established." I have asked for a link to the discussion, but haven't seen one yet. If it is going to be possible to summarise the whole MS-EULA for IE9 into one or two words for the infobox, we'll have to start with the original text, which is linked above.[12] It's a supplemental license that says "If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement. You may not use it if you do not have a license for the software." I would much rather just name the Microsoft document and provide a link to it, but if we can't do that for some realistic reason, then we may have to content ourselves with summarising or classifying it into our own words. Legally, I do not feel very well qualified to do so accurately. P.S. See Talk:Internet Explorer 9#MS-EULA again, not quite as stated in some of the links above. --Nigelj (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Czarkoff I believe that the most appropriate wording would be |license=[[Freeware]] for Windows licensees, as it both demonstrates that Internet Explorer per se is distributed free of charge, though Windows license (which costs money) is required. I find |license=MS-EULA approach particularly bad, as MS-EULA it is an abbreviation of the generic title of Microsoft license agreement and doesn't communicate the terms of license to readers. 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Talk:Internet Explorer discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hello all, I'm a volunteer here at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm going to try and shepherd this dispute to a resolution. Let's wait until all the parties have had an opportunity to present their cases. Hasteur (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, now that we've got all the editors statements, I'd like to ask a question. Where in the infobox {{Infobox Windows component}} is the licence field? Unless I've missed something the template doesn't have support for a licence field and I've spot checked and seen this template in use on the page since the beginning of this year. Could someone please link me to the direct item that they're wanting to change? Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry, it is my fault: I linked the wrong article. The discussion is about {{infobox web browser}} of Internet Explorer 9 article. I fixed the links in this case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC) First, I'd say that any of these terms is correct. One thing that struck me is that a footnote may be suitable in this case to explain the need to have a valid Windows license. You may have already done this, but I took a quick look at comparable browsers. None of course are exactly the same, but they may help: Opera (web browser): Proprietary freeware with open source components Note: proprietary, formerly commercial, freeware Safari (web browser): Freeware; some components GNU LGPL Note: commercial, freeware, default browser on Mac Netscape (web browser): proprietary Note: formerly commercial, proprietary, freeware, belligerent in browser wars against IE Mosaic (web browser): proprietary Note: proprietary, commercial, freeware for non-commercial use AOL Explorer: proprietary Note: based on IE, proprietary, commercial, freeware, required browser to access AOL, required a valid AOL subscription Internet Explorer for Mac: MS-EULA Note: proprietary, commercial, freeware, default browser on Mac, required a valid Mac license [Edit: struck this because it's a given] --RA (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, now that I can see how the problem is affecting this, I'd like to ask another question. What about Internet Explorer 9 (hereafter refered to as IE9) and it's licence is significantly different than the previous 8 versions? I did a quick tour through the other versions and saw MS-EULA on the rest of them. Hasteur (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC) No, there is no difference. That said, I'm unsure whether the fact that the other IE-related articles contain |license=MS-[[EULA]] proves that this choice is right or at least better then any other. As I see it, the role of |license= parameter is to inform readers of terms of use of the software, and neither the name "MS-EULA", not the link to end-user license agreement article helps to fulfill this role. Though I have no proof to establish the validity of my vision, it is in line with documentation of {{infobox software}}, containing the same parameter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Dimitrij, can we have time to let others speak up? Hasteur (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hello. I must agree with Dimitrij on that point. MS-EULA has zero sense and is a WP:GAN blocker. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) FWIW this article suggests that MS-EULA primarily refers to license for Windows. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, After crawling through the definitions again I am confused. I'd like to hear each disputant's viewpoint about the inclusionary/exclusionary natures of commercial software and freeware (Specifically paid versus given away and restricted rights) Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Czarkoff:Term freeware (as I get it) means that usage rights (commonly ambiguously referred to as "license") for the software is offered free of charge. As I get it, this term doesn't imply lack of usage restrictions: typically freeware is offered without right of modification (or adaptation), frequently for non-commercial purposes only, seldom other restrictions are imposed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Codename Lisa: "Freeware" means proprietary software available for use free of charge. It applies to every piece of software that has a license agreement of its own. Other facts such as hardware or software requirements, dependencies (independent versus add-in), eligibility (first use versus upgrade), platform, availability for commercial use, etc. are excluded from the scope of "freeware". May or may not overlap the definition of freemium. Ziiike: Freeware: Closed Source software that is available for no charge. Any restrictions or limits could be present, to the extent that it is free, (In terms of cost.) Commercial: Most commonly refers to closed source software that you must pay for. Any restrictions or limits could be present. Freeware, according to the page, I believe; does not contain an official or common definition. Commercial seems to refer to must pay software, such as Microsoft Word, the best example of common freeware would be a software that has no restrictions other than no source and prohibited reverse engineering and disassembly. Ziiike (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Schapel: The term freeware means software that costs no money to use. If there is an exchange of money for the right to use a program, then that program is not freeware. Several editors argue that once a user has purchased Windows, then using browsers such as Opera or Internet Explorer costs no extra money, and therefore they should equally be considered freeware. There are two problems with this argument. First, no money was paid to Opera for the right to use their software, but the user did pay Microsoft money for the right to run Internet Explorer (because using it legally requires a Windows license). Second, I can download Opera for Windows and run it under Wine on Linux without paying any money; I would not be able to do the same with Internet Explorer. The bottom line is that using Internet Explorer requires a payment that is not required for using actual freeware browsers, which require no payment. -- Schapel (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Nigelj: To my mind, freeware implies not only that it doesn't require payment, but usually that there are no restrictions on what you do with it, what operating system you run it on (provided you can get it to run); it usually means that there is no support, no updates, no warranty, and no one to sue if it screws up your machine or your business. None of this applies to MSIE, or businesses would not pay out for Microsoft OS licenses in order to be able to roll out MSIE across all their desktops, with full support, updates, backup etc. I think that the correct response is MS-[[EULA]], with a ref linked to the specific actual document at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-MY/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/end-user-license-agreement That way there is no WP:OR and all relevant information is made available. I remain baffled by the admonition "Please avoid specifying phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"" in the infobox documentation. If this is the correct license for 35,000 products, why should we not name it, link it, and reference it? --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) One of the problems is that, like many words, they're vaguely defined. The ambiguity of the term freeware has a lot to do with the dispute. Perhaps it's better just to stick with "proprietary software"?--SGCM (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hi. First, I'd like to clarify that not every vague is ambiguous. Vague can refer to overgeneralized as well. "Freeware" is not ambiguous but it is overgeneralized. I think this wideness of scope gives us freedom. That said, I can perfectly make do with any compromise that involves a phrase that defines the terms of license. I myself prefer "Freeware for Windows license owners" but I accept "proprietary software" as my third choice. In the mean time, if the license is so important, the are article can have footnotes or a whole license section. (I participated or studied various GA or FA cases in which such a section was applauded.) What I refuse to accept on any merit is a phrase that fails to help the reader determines the terms of license to whatever insufficient extent, especially MS-EULA. Such phrases can fail a GA nomination or review. Now, as for Nigelj's assertion: First, in your own mind, you have clearly mistaken freeware with free and open-source and therefore no proprietary gratis software (such as Opera or iTunes) qualifies as freeware against the definition you have. Second, no one said it is the correct license for 35,000 products. Even if it was, there is no mention of "MS-EULA" or "Microsoft End-User License Agreement" in Internet Explorer 9's license agreement. You suggestion fails verification against the source you yourself supplied. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Codename Lisa, will you please stop reading my mind: telling me what I have in my own mind, as well as making up stories about what I'm going to do next. In every case so far you have been wrong. As for the document I linked being an End User License Agreement, please look at the end part of the URL - that is what its publishers published it as. Regarding freeware and FLOSS, I am very well aware of the difference. On the one hand I did not try to 'define' freeware, I said what 'to my mind' it 'implies'. Regarding free and open source software, have a look at SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, Red Hat Enterprise Linux and JBoss - they are all examples of huge FLOSS systems that can cost a great deal of money and come with full support, just like Microsoft products. The difference is that in those cases there is a legitimate meaning for the word 'free', though in another sense. Every other version of MSIE on Wikipedia (except 10, strangely) uses 'MS-EULA' under 'License' in it's infobox. Perhaps someone would like to explain why IE9 is different. --Nigelj (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Internet Explorer definitely is proprietary software. Still, |license=[[proprietary software]] isn't acceptable IMO, as it doesn't help with clarification of licensing status — this wording includes everything from official builds of Firefox to Adobe Photoshop. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I won't argue that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That's a good point, but I wonder if there's a way to get around the semantics argument over the term "freeware." Perhaps we should shorten freeware to free? As in "free for Windows licensees"?--SGCM (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) "Free" is mostly associated with free software, and as Microsoft is involved in several opensource projects, this is ambiguous. |license=[[proprietary software|prorietary]], free of charge for Windows licensees<ref>...</ref> would probably do the job. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) updated 22:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Using the term free to describe a product that cost money is misleading. I can understand explaining that it costs no additional money for Windows licensees. I think the term proprietary software, included with Windows sums up all of this, is not misleading, and even explains why Windows users do not need to pay extra for Internet Explorer. But the term free is just wrong. -- Schapel (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC) There is no version of Windows to include IE 9. And I would ask you again to provide reliable source for the statement that IE itself costs money. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I have not made a statement about a specific version of Internet Explorer. I made the statement that Internet Explorer is included with Windows. When you install Windows, Internet Explorer is included. Are you seriously disputing this fact? But in any case, this is nitpicking, because using Internet Explorer requires a Windows license (whether it is part of Windows or not), and therefore using Internet Explorer legally requires a payment to Microsoft. Internet Explorer is not free -- you pay for it by paying for Windows. -- Schapel (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC) This discussion is about the infobox in Internet Explorer 9 article, which is not installed with any version of Windows. It can only be installed after installation (or may come preinstalled by vendor of particular PC). So yes, I absolutely seriously dispute the statements (1) that IE9 is included with Windows and (2) that saying so is appropriate in the article. Next, could you please explain, how exactly the phrase "for Windows licensees" may make readers think that Total cost of ownership (TCO) of IE doesn't include the cost of acquiring Windows license? Ultimately, as far as TCO and licensing price are different things, please explain, why do you insist on reporting TCO instead of licensing price in the field clearly named "license"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Freeware is software that costs no money to use. You must pay Microsoft money to use Internet Explorer. Therefore, it is not free, and calling it freeware is misleading. Obfuscating your argument by throwing around terms such as TCO is just twisting things around trying to make it look like something that costs money to use is free. Do you have no problem with every version of Internet Explorer except version 9 as being characterized as "proprietary software, included with Windows"? Is it specifically version 9 that the argument is about? How about "proprietary software, no-cost upgrade from IE8" then? -- Schapel (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC) IE 9 doesn't require previous installation of IE8. And even if it did, it is not upgrade, but a standalone browser. Or maybe you have a reliable source saying otherwise? Do you understand that price and cost are not synonyms? Do you understand, that "free" in "freeware" is about the price, not the cost? Next, where did you notice the word "freeware" in the phrase "prorietary, free of charge for Windows licensees"? And again, could you please provide reference, saying that the price of Internet Explorer is included in price of Windows license. Unless such reference is found, saying anything beyond "Internet Explorer is available free of charge, but only to owners of legitimate Windows license" constitutes improper synthesis. So please, either provide a reference or stop dragging the discussion into original research. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC) First, you can figure out that because Internet Explorer requires a Windows license to run, that the price of running Internet Explorer is the same price as Windows, which is decidedly not "free". How does this require a reference? It's directly stated in the licensing terms for Internet Explorer 9. Second, Internet Explorer actually is included with Windows, as it states many times in Internet Explorer. Windows Internet Explorer (formerly Microsoft Internet Explorer, commonly abbreviated IE or MSIE) is a series of graphical web browsers developed by Microsoft and included as part of the Microsoft Windows line of operating systems, starting in 1995. It is part of Windows and is licensed under the same terms as Windows, so it has the same license as Windows -- proprietary software. As far as I'm concerned, labeling all versions of Internet Explorer as "proprietary software" is fine. -- Schapel (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The price of running IE is exactly 0 amount of whatever currency. The cost of running IE is the price of Windows license, the costs of accessing PC, the costs of electricity and multiple other costs that don't affect the price of IE' license. Once you state that price of IE includes the price of Windows license, you are synthesizing the verified statements that (1) the license agreement of IE requires legitimate license for certain versions of Windows and (2) Windows is normally licensed for money. These two facts require the third fact — that the price of IE license is included in price of Windows — to verify the statement the price of IE's license is not 0 (in other words, that IE is not freeware). This is the reference you should have provided before putting forward the argument. Next, several versions of IE can be downloaded separately and installed on other OSs without acquiring the copy of Windows (though still Windows license is necessary), so IE is not only a part of Windows, but also a completely standalone browser. Limiting the content of |license= to the "component" aspect makes the overall statement factually wrong. That said, I agree that labeling all versions of IE as "proprietary software" is absolutely right. Still, this wording is too general for Infobox. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC) At least we can agree that it's proprietary software, and that it doesn't require original research to reach that conclusion. How is it that my conclusion about Internet Explorer costing money is original research, but your arguments are not original research? Can you provide a reliable source that states that Internet Explorer is freeware for Windows licensees? -- Schapel (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Sure. This statement is a synthesis of the following: Freeware is software that is distributed free of charge, though other restrictions may apply ([13], [14], etc.); Internet Explorer is distributed free of charge ([15], [16], etc.); Internet Explorer requires Windows license (ref, didn't search for more). Did I forget anything? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I'll also note that Microsoft argued in court that the merging of Microsoft Windows and Internet Explorer was the result of innovation and competition, that the two were now the same product and were inextricably linked together and that consumers were now getting all the benefits of IE for free. United_States_v._Microsoft So Microsoft goes even further than I do, saying not just that IE is part of Windows, but that they are one in the same product! I don't understand how IE can be free if Windows is the same product, and it costs money. That logic completely eludes me! -- Schapel (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) That was in 1998–1999, when this statement reflected the reality. Now it doesn't. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The thing I didn't notice when I was writing my previous comment (4 a.m. is a bad time for analyzing information): the product is not necessarily an individual piece of software, it is more of a single box regardless of content. Eg., Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a product, but the package includes quite a lot of unrelated software by different authors and with different licensing terms, and with most of that software being available via other products by Red Hat, by others and standalone. Same is true for Windows packages and IE: IE is available alongside OS and other software on Windows installation media, as branded product from independent suppliers ([17] (in Russian)), and standalone from Microsoft. And its licensing terms differ much from those of Windows. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) So perhaps we can say it is proprietary software and perhaps provide a link in the infobox to a section on the page or another page that explains the license in detail? There is information on this; as IEs4Linux exists and has had issues with this. Ziiike (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I think that linking would be very helpful, as apart from the discussed issue there are other peculiarities (starting with IE8 some of IE-related intellectual property is liberally licensed, which deserves mention). Still, I'm not sure whether we have currently a good target for this link. Also note, that the link doesn't excuse us from reporting the licensing status of IE9 in the article's infobox, and the wording "proprietary software" fails to achieve the purpose. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Hi, Hasteur I think the same discussion is being kept repeated over and over again without results. If we keep this pace, this discussion will never end. Let's keep this strictly by the book. Everything that is likely to be challenged in Wikipedia needs a source. Schapel has so far been insisting that Internet Explorer costs money and we kept challenging him. (On that grounds he has resisted any compromise, including the vague "Proprietary software".) I suggest either he supply sources for his assertion or this line of discussion be disregarded entirely. We have argued that Internet Explorer is free of charge and so far have supplied five sources. I think I can come by an additional five. If that is really necessary, just say the word. Once it is done, I think we can discuss as to whether Internet Explorer is free, freeware or otherwise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ok, how does ProprietaryFreeware work for everyone? It indicates that that it's both free and that there are restrictions on what the end user has to do in order to legally use it. Hasteur (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC) As Lisa had said, Schapel disagrees with the use of freeware/free, which is the reason why this discussion has persisted as long as it has. Perhaps "Proprietary software, requires Windows licence" might work? And Schapel does need to provide proof that explicitly states that IE is commercial software.--SGCM (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC) @Hasteur: Though this goes against some of older sources we have, in last 10 years or so "free software" became mutually exclusive to "freeware"; as "proprietary software" is defined in context of "free/proprietary" dichotomy, "proprietary" part in "Proprietary Freeware" is redundant. And though I still think it is freeware, the issue with Microsoft license is indeed worth reporting. @SGCM: works for me, as "free of charge" is both implied (browsers are normally distributed free of charge) and omitted (so Schapel's concern of misleading wording is addressed). As a minor (though questionable) improvement, I would put it as |license=[[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license ("Windows" would be already linked above or below). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC) To get away from the insider trading portion of this, the Freeware article does give a good definition in it's lead about what freeware means. Proprietary software also gives a compatible answer based on my reading. I would also note that the infobox is not the location to have the needlepoint precision argument about the licencing that the software is under. The inforbox documentation says to either use a well known unambigious licence or to use generic terms to describe the licence requirements. It can be debated and refined in the text of the article. The infobox is supposed to be the vital-stats of the article. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC) FWIW our definition of freeware license (Freeware § Software license) says: "the author usually restricts one or more rights of the user, including the rights to copy, distribute, modify and make derivative works of the software or extract the source code ... The software license may also impose various other restrictions, such as ... restricted use in a combination with some types of other software or with some hardware devices..." This covers both "proprietary" and "cost of Windows" aspects, so |license=[[Freeware]] probably is not all that wrong. But as I understand the idea behind the docs, this field should describe the important licensing aspects without diving in trivia. I [evidently unsuccessfully] tried to address that with my version and SGCM now proposed a better solution to ambiguity problem. Sure, we can just live on with |license=Freeware, |license=Proprietary software or even |license=yes, all of which don't argue the formal logic; still, I thing that encyclopedic purpose should not be completely ignored even in infoboxes... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Using Internet Explorer is not free because it requires paying for Windows, so calling it freeware is misleading. It's really as simple as that. The term "proprietary software" is what we seem to be able to agree on. -- Schapel (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC) That is something everybody agrees, and it doesn't contradict to "Proprietary Freeware" proposal you reply to. And please, before you again reply that price of IE includes price of Windows, make sure your response contains reliable source to back your claim. Running in circles without proof is not the best way of resolving disputes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC) As I've explained many times before, running Internet Explorer requires a Windows license, which costs money. It is not possible to legally run Internet Explorer without paying money to Microsoft for the required license. Is this seriously in dispute? If so, which part is disputed? Where is the reliable source that states Internet Explorer is freeware? -- Schapel (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Schapel, please provide a reliable source that uses that language. It's now been requested on 3 separate locations here and at this point it seems (from my viewpoint) that you're the only one who objects to the sequence of "free" being anywhere in the licence field. I point you to the Free software article which in the first paragraph talks about the difference between free (liberty) and free (cost). Please review the freeware article and see if the definition seems to conform. I say again that the infobox is designed to give a top level highlight, whereas the article can get into the nitty gritty. Hasteur (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC) What "language" are you referring to? Do you want a reliable source that states that using Internet Explorer requires a Windows license? I have provided that. Do you want a reliable source that states that a Windows license costs money? Is that what you're requesting? If you request something specific, I can certainly attempt to supply it, but I'm not sure what you're asking for. I'm actually not entirely sure I can find a source that states point blank that Windows costs money -- I don't think that point is being disputed in fact. Where is a reliable source that states Internet Explorer is free? It seems if saying it costs money without a reliable source is original research, than saying it's free without a reliable source is original research also. -- Schapel (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Is this what you want? Although Microsoft may tout that Internet Explorer (IE) is included with Windows or can be downloaded free of charge, many of us realize that IE's cost really is built into Windows' price tag, and that we do in fact pay for it when we fork out the cash for a new PC or a boxed copy of Windows. There you go -- a reliable source (Ars Technica) that refers to IE's cost and not being free. -- Schapel (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Hello, Schapel In case you do not know, a source that you supply must meet several requirements. First, a source that you supply must be relevant to the subject of discussion. Last time I checked, the dispute was about the license of Internet Explorer 9; yet your source predates this browser by a four years. Maybe it is true that IE6 price was built into Windows price tag because it was a component of Windows XP. IE9 however, is an independent release. Perhaps you can argue that we are extending the scope of our discussion to the entire IE family. Yes, but I can also remind you that your discussion has stayed the same since you edit-warred in IE9 article. Second, the source that you introduce must backup your assertion. So far, you have been asserting that IE9 is released under a commercial software license but your source does not say anything of that kind. It speaks of hidden costs for enterprises. Perhaps I should remind you of our subject of discussion again: We are discussing IE's terms of license, not how Microsoft manages to release IE under those terms and cope with the costs of doing it. And while you have failed to provide a source that backs you up, I have so far produced five source that explicitly say IE is "freeware" and I can provide five more if there is a need. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC) @Schapel: It fails to verify the statement that Internet Explorer costs money to end users. Instead it discusses the private costs of Internet Explorer, as one may notice from reading this post in full, not just an out of context quote. This is something everybody agrees from the very beginning, but you need a reliable source, stating that licensing price of Internet Explorer is included with Windows, while the quote from Ars unambiguously implies the opposite ("Although Microsoft may tout that Internet Explorer (IE) is included with Windows or can be downloaded free of charge"). @Codename Lisa: IE 9 isn't included with whatever version of Windows, but the text of its license and the price of this license didn't change since Microsoft introduced Trident. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Okay. So to say that Internet Explorer 9 is freeware, you need a reliable source to make that very specific statement, too. -- Schapel (talk) 11:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC) May I ask for a personal favor? Please, read the comments to your statements. Eg the one right below, the one linked, and those by Codename Lisa. The linked sources explicitly state that IE is freeware. No, they do not explicitly state that Internet Explorer 9 is freeware. That conclusion is a synthesis of several sources, and one of the sources is about Internet Explorer 8, not Internet Explorer 9. Give me a reliable source that makes the specific statement "Internet Explorer 9 is freeware", just as I need to provide a source that Internet Explorer 9 costs money. I already did this, by providing a source that says that Internet Explorer costs money, but of course confirmation bias caused you and others misinterpret what it says, even though it specifically states "IE's cost really is built into Windows' price tag, and that we do in fact pay for it when we fork out the cash for a new PC or a boxed copy of Windows." -- Schapel (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) That said, both I and Codename Lisa explicitly opted to compromise on "Proprietary software, requires Windows licence", so it doesn't make sense to use the word "freeware" to make the others forget that you still didn't provide even a questionable source supporting your comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC) That wording is fine. -- Schapel (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I've already did it in this response, and Codename Lisa did it several times before. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Does Schapel reject to czarkoff's proposal of |license=[[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license? It implies that the browser is free without stating that it is. If not, then it should be implemented.--SGCM (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC) No, I do not object to that wording. -- Schapel (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Is there any objection to that wording? Perhaps we've stumbled across a workable answer. Start the 24 hour clock for objections. Hasteur (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Hi. Yes, actually I have an objection. I know I said it is my third choice (I was expecting it as a compromise with Nigelj) but why did we drop my first choice, along with the policy of verifiability, along with the policy of Consensus? I have supplied five sources that explicitly say IE9 is freeware. (Yes, I know Schapel denied it; but again, he has chosen to deny a lot of things here.) With Schapel being the only of the five who has such peculiar opinion, we seem to have consensus on this matter. Did I miss anything? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Hello again. There is no denying that email is a useful thing. All right then. Perhaps it is for the best. But may I at least propose "Proprietary upgrade; requires Windows license"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Why "upgrade"? It is allowed to be used standalone, and IIRC, some people use it standalone on Linux with CrossOver. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I believe running it on any other operating system than Windows is illegal if you don't have the license, according to this, you have to have a Windows Vista/Server 2008 license or newer. That doesn't say it is free. And also, if you were to remove Internet Explorer 8, and then install Internet Explorer 9, that would not exactly be an upgrade and some versions of windows 7 do not include Internet explorer at all. I think Proprietary requires is the best idea. However, perhaps we can state that you need a specific version of Microsoft Windows to use Internet Explorer 9, as the license does not say that it is legal to run it on Windows XP or older. Ziiike (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I have said from the start (at Talk:Internet Explorer 9#MS-EULA again) that freeware is the wrong word, as it has so many connotations and implications that do not apply to IE9, and have repeated that view here. Nothing that has been proposed has changed my view on that, as all the various meanings of that term still exist in the potential reader's mind, including some that don't apply to IE9. I therefore agree with the current proposal, namely |license=[[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license. I would like to see that statement referenced to [18] (either in the infobox or in the body of the article) as that document is not that easy to find on microsoft.com. --Nigelj (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Based on comments by Nigelj and Ziiike I propose the following version: |license=[[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license<ref>{{citation |url=http://windows.microsoft.com/en-MY/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/end-user-license-agreement |title=Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 |work=[[Microsoft]] |accessdate=2012-08-26 |quote=If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement.}}</ref> which renders as: Proprietary, requires Windows license It seems to address all concerns (except for "upgrade" proposal I don't think I understand). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed. --Nigelj (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Hi. Please don't forget to specify the scope. The scope of this license is Internet Explorer 6 through Internet Explorer 9. IE10 is strictly a component of Windows 8. IE1 through IE5 were made for other operating systems too. IE1 was part of Internet Jumpstart Kit of Microsoft Plus! and was proprietary commercial. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (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.

Rasmussen Reports

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nstrauss on 21:50, 30 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Talk:Rasmussen Reports#lead: conservative leaning or independent (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Beeblebrox#Rasmussen Reports (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nstrauss (talk · contribs) Safehaven86 (talk · contribs) Orangemike (talk · contribs) Naapple (talk · contribs) Dispute overview At Talk:Rasmussen_Reports, I raised a substantive issue that I thought had some merit. Three other editors contributed to the discussion, all opposed to my suggestion. One was uncivil from the start, a second added no arguments, and for the third I thought we were actually making progress. Only 8 days after I opened the thread it was closed by Beeblebrox, an admin. I politely asked him why he closed it and he/she said there was obvious consensus. I strenuously disagree with his/her position that there was consensus, let alone that it was obvious. When I pointed out why I thought there was no consensus he/she did not respond on the merits but instead proceeded to question my motives, which I believe was unproductive and a blatant violation of WP:AGF. I want to be clear, I'm not seeking immediate resolution of the underlying substantive discussion at Talk:Rasmussen_Reports. All I want is for the administrative decision to close the discussion to be reversed so that the underlying discussion can run its course. I do not feel that 8 days was sufficient time because progress was being made and there should have been more time for other contributors to weigh in before the issue was "decided." Have you tried to resolve this previously? First I discussed the matter with Beeblebrox on his/her user page. When I failed to get any traction there I tried to find an administrative remedy. I posted a query at Wikipedia_talk:Closing_discussions but got no response. Next I asked at the Help Desk where it was suggested I post "somewhere like WP:AN." Then I posted on WP:AN/I where I was told to come here. How do you think we can help? To be honest I'm not super-hopeful. I suppose you could convince Beeblebrox of the error in his/her ways, but he/she seems pretty dead-set. I already expressed to the administrator who told me to post here that I don't think this is the appropriate forum. The response was that I should raise the issue here, and if I'm told I can't be helped then I can take it back to WP:AN/I. Opening comments by Safehaven86 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Naapple Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. This "dispute" doesn't require the action of a noticeboard. There was a discussion that went on for 2 or more pages where the topic was adequately discussed. The overwhelming consensus was that the material he wanted in didn't belong. When this wasn't enough, he put up a tag asking for an independent reviewer. One came in and sided with the consensus. The page was then quiet for several days and eventually an admin locked it. This is simply a case where the editor cannot accept the decision made by every other person. There is nothing to gain by reopening the debate. Every possible aspect has been discussed and the discussion was long dead by the time the admin showed up. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to have the material reviewed and hope that someone will side with him. I strongly invite the reviewer to review the actual debate in the talk page. Naapple (Talk) 01:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Orangemike Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Rasmussen Reports discussion Hi! I'm a DRN volunteer and will be mediating this discussion. We need to hear from Beeblebrox before we can begin. Please note that DRN only handles content disputes, and will not comment on user conduct, or if a closure was appropriate (in this case). If Beeblebrox was involved in the content dispute pertaining to this discussion, than he may be involved. However, if Beeblebrox is only here because of his closure at an admin board, than that is not a DRN issue. Electric Catfish 22:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - It appears that the editor that filed this DRN case has focused a bit too much on the conduct of the other editors, and not enough on the content issue. For reference, the original question on the talk page was "Should the lead section include anything about Rasmussen's political or partisan leaning or affiliation? If so, what should it say?". I've posted a notice on the filing editor's talk page, offering to help reframe the opening statement so this case flows more smoothly. --Noleander (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Is Beeblebrox involved in the pertinent content dispute? Electric Catfish 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) No. As far as I can tell from the talk page, Beeblebrox was uninvolved and made no comments. Beeblebrox simply closed the thread after 8 days with the comment "The consensus here favors the position that this material does not belong in the lead section. ". --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC) The editors that did comment in the discussion were User:Orangemike, user: Naapple and User: Safehaven86. They, not Beeblebrox, should be the other parties in this case. --Noleander (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I updated the list of parties to include those 3, and placed DRN notices on their talk pages. --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I object to the updated list of parties, or at least the removal of Beeblebrox. See below. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Important: I'm sorry if I wasn't 100% clear, but my purpose for raising this issue on this page was not to settle the content dispute. The purpose was to challenge Beeblebrox's decision to close the discussion and that's all. If others really want to take up the cause and try to resolve the content dispute here then that's their prerogative but I would suggest creating a new entry on this page because it's not the subject of this entry. If WP:DRN is not the appropriate place for my challenge then perhaps someone could state as much and close this dispute so that I can take this to a more appropriate forum. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC) I guess you missed my point entirely. I suggested you bring this here to resolve the content dispute, not to continue giving me a hard time about the RFC close. Why is it more important to you to keep grousing at me over the close than to resolve the actual issue, to the point where you have opened what, three or four separate discussions in different places? Your priorities once again seem badly out of whack, which is what caused this problem to begin with as far as I am concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC) The reason I am taking this approach is because I seek to foster discussion by giving others the opportunity to weigh in instead of cutting off discussion prematurely. Although I disagree with the other contributors to the Rasmussen Reports discussion, I believe that they are entitled to their views and I am not complaining about them. What I am complaining about is your decision to close the discussion, and I am entitled to make that complaint. On a separate note, you have criticized my motives and my priorities and have engaged in a pattern of what I would call uncivil behavior and I don't appreciate it. I would think an experienced and active admin such as yourself would try to set a better example for us relative newbies. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC) DRN is not for conduct disputes, this noticeboard only handles content disputes. Look at the noticeboards listed below "conduct disputes" on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the appropriate forum.--SGCM (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC) If you would like, we will handle the content dispute, but Beeblebrox will no longer be involved. Electric Catfish 11:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC) The only thing I would add is that politely asking someone to examine their own priorities is not incivility. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC) You're really stretching to call that polite. This as well. It seems to me that any time you question someone's motives you're crossing a bright line. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Electric and SGCM, I'm not interested in handling the content dispute at this time. If I am in the future then I'll create a new DRN entry and add an appropriate introduction. If you could close this then I'd appreciate it. That way I can go back to AN or AN/I and say DRN is not the appropriate forum (as I had suspected). --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2012 (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.

The Expendables 2 Infobox and Cast List

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Darkwarriorblake on 13:49, 1 September 2012 (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. Location of dispute The Expendables 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User talk:DasallmächtigeJ#September 2012 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) User talk:Darkwarriorblake#Expendables 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User Dasallmacthtige is using OR and POV to add cast to the infobox starring field and a list of cast in the cast section of The Expendables 2. I explained multiple times (and there is a breakdown in the above discussion) of how it was limited to starring roles only and for a reason to prevent such POV/OR disputes. The user at first refused to explain what they were doing and even when warned about 3RR continued. I am not innocent I will admit, I lsot my cool with him in the discussion but the user has ignored multiple explanations and justifications and continues to further edit war and violate 3RR to push their POV/OR agenda about this. The guideline is to use those billed on the poster, we can also of course use the film when it is out, but the film credits support the article as it was before, giving the earliest billing like on the poster to the main stars. The user accuses me of picking and choosing but he ignores that there are other cast also billed that are not included but that he chooses not to include them, just the ones he has decided that are starring. User seems to think that cast being in prose form is somehow a punishment and makes their information "unreliable", unreliable in this case I assume meaning they aren't given enough prominence and thus the article is incorrect. As stated the user is ignoring any attempt at reason and in his latest edit has ignored yet again my edit summary telling him to take it to the talk page of the article before undoing it again. Response was that he's spent enough time "trying to talk sense into" me and did it again. Believes that he isn't violating 3RR because he is right. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Logic, explaining my stance, explaining the reasoning, explaining the implications of using OR to pick and choose who is added and where. Provided 3rr warning while user was on 3rd revert, now on 5th. How do you think we can help? I don't know, look at the arguments and decide who is right. My stance is based on provided guidelines for the infobox which says only starring roles should be there and in turn the cast list is based on that in both content and order to prevent arguments by fans of a particular actor who think they should be higher in the list or whatever. It needs input of some kind because he obviously is not going to stop unless he gets his way. Opening comments by DasallmächtigeJ Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. The Expendables 2 Infobox Cast List Discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. The discussion 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.

Assam

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Chaipau on 21:29, 1 September 2012 (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. Location of dispute Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Chaipau (talk · contribs) Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The section Assam#Etymology is in a very sorry state. It is verbose, badly formatted with random highlighted quotes, inaccurate and is also ridiculous in parts. All efforts to improve the section has been thwarted by User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB from now). BB is particularly passionate about protecting a ridiculous statement "Assam" is based on the English name Assam. BB has highlighted quotes about the derivation of the name "Assamese", which is not the topic of interest here. BB has packed the section with irrelevant material. BB is averse to collaborative editing. Messages left on his talk page goes unanswered. With much difficulty, a dialogue was initiated at Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam, and the dialogue consisted of mostly name calling and accusations. I asked for a WP:3O, and the verdict, was promptly rejected with fresh accusations. I placed the matter on WP:RSN, and there it was accepted that "Assam" is an anglicized form of "Asam" is correct (diff). Further, I submitted an alternative text for the section, Alternate text 3, which was tweaked to [[ Alternate text 4 according to recommendations (comments). When I tried to insert this section with an invitation to discuss before reverting, BB choose to revert without comment. The issue was brought to this notice board, and BB became temporarily unavailable, "Alternate Text 4" was conditionally accepted, and the thread archived with the understanding that should the dispute arise, a fresh submission be made. BB has since returned, reverted the new insertion and made extensive changes to the text, including the removal of the link to Etymology of Assam. Have you tried to resolve this previously? All steps are mentioned in the overview. How do you think we can help? Encourage User:Bhaskarbhagawati to accept the WP:3O and WP:RS/N opinions. If not suggest next stage for resolution of this dispute Opening comments by Bhaskarbhagawati Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Assam discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. (Hi, I'm a volunteer, etc). Many dispute resolution forms came to the same conclusion regarding the text. This should solve your problem - if it happens again, take it to the admin noticeboard - if they remove the content again then it becomes a refusal to get the point, and needs to be handled by an admin. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC) For the record, the previous sections here are: "Assam#Etymology" at archive 33 "Assam" at archive 43 ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - My inclination, after reviewing the prior DRN cases (listed above by Ebe123), is that the sources & approach suggested by user Chaipau are most consistent with WP polices. User Bhaskarbhagawati has not engaged in good faith discussions, in spite of being repeatedly notified of the discussions (but Bhaskarbhagawati has blanked his Talk page a few times). I agree with S. Zhang that user Chaipau should proceed with editing the article, and if user Bhaskarbhagawati reverts the edits, then the behavior should be brought up at WP:ANI to consider a possible block of Bhaskarbhagawati. --Noleander (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2012 (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.

Vladimir Putin and related articles

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by A13ean on 17:37, 31 August 2012 (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. Location of dispute Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved A13ean (talk · contribs) Nanobear (talk · contribs) Tataral (talk · contribs) Malick78 (talk · contribs) Peterzor (talk · contribs) Greyhood (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been a long running dispute on the neutrality of the article, in particular to criticisms of Putin and the reliability of various Russian and western sources. Have you tried to resolve this previously? This dispute has been the focus of a large number of postings to WP:BLP/N and a [19] to WP:NPOV/N. Sources related to it have been discussed extensively at WP:RS/N. How do you think we can help? I hope to set some standards for what can be considered a RS for the article and how criticisms should be presented in the article. I struck this first point based on what Steven said below, and restrict this to the long-running NPOV concerns. a13ean (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Opening comments by Nanobear Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Tataral Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Malick78 Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Peterzor Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Opening comments by Greyhood Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks. Vladimir Putin and to a lesser degree in a large number of related articles discussion Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary. Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. You mentioned that there have been numerous posts to RSN in regards to references to use in the article - if this is the case, then DRN cannot go against findings made by RSN, nor can we create a blanket rule. When the use of a source is in dispute, first one should apply the rules that are explained at WP:RS, and use the reliable sources noticeboard if necessary, but it's on a case-by-case basis. I'd recommend taking that course of action - DRN may not be able to assist here as it concerns reliable sources, and we can't create a blanket rule just for this article - what's at WP:RS is what needs to be used. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 21:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC) but does anyone actually support the "mafia state" pov in main lede of the article? non-npov neologisms does not belong in the intro! it is enought to mention it once later in the article so am not disputing anything just saying we need to follow official guidelines so "mafia state" is okay to be included but not in the intro and about the "putin dictator" thing am somewhat neutral on that so that can stay or not it doesent matter so much there actually Peterzor (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC) We cannot be making a blanket-rule. POVs are okay in some contexts, like for Critical reception of a movie, but a neutral point of view is needed for facts provided in the article. I ditto Steven above. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Just looking at threads like this, it's obvious that the dispute was not about sources. The multiple RS to support a view have been provided. No sources to support an alternative view have been provided. An experienced editor in this area will never admit that he simply does not want a sourced and relevant information to be included. Instead, he will always tell that a bunch of sources was not "mainstream" or "academic" or simply tell that the view he does not like was "marginal", without providing any sources, and that is what had happened here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (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.