Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 70

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sun Ladder in topic An Bord Pleanála
Archive 65←Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72→Archive 75

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell

Latest comment: 11 years ago58 comments7 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am engaged in a long running debate over the content and structure of a page with Lucia Black and Ryulong. Discussion has yielded no results and a key article viewed by 60000 people is effectively two smashed together articles, with the manga page on top of a minimal franchise branch. Policy-based discussion is rejected for 'we already did otherwise'. Relevant policies are WP:SS specifically WP:DETAIL. Also WP:UNDUE andWP:SPINOFF. Though WP:SIZE and WP:NPOV are also probably relevant for readability and scope.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the first step, Lucia Black's dramatic ANI and Mediation about me 'not discussing' was summarily closed as false. The RFC to oppose my GA close was also rejected for procedures.

How do you think we can help?

Assist in obtaining a resolution to this matter.

Opening comments by ChrisGualtieri

To make matters short and simple. Back in October 2012, Lucia merged the Ghost in the Shell (manga) page to Ghost in the Shell. Later put it up for GA and no one took notice until I reviewed the material. I failed the article for numerous reasons and went about trying to fix it, as I was contesting her unilateral change which was hard to detect. Lucia Black overreacted and opened a RFC to contest my GA close, brought me to ANI after I laid out my fixes and tried formal Mediation as well that same day. They both closed as I was discussing with Lucia. I end up taking a wikibreak and come back before Ryulong repeats the merge and begins the dispute anew.

My stance is that the manga page is distinctly different from the franchise material. The original mangas comprise a minority of the content yet dominate the franchise page. Ryulong and Lucia Black are intent on removing the franchise page (Lucia claimed the franchise as not-notable previously) and Ryulong believed the articles were short. The manga was 25kb at merge, but was over 35kb. The original franchise page at Ghost in the Shell is so damaged as needing to be entirely recreated. The page is very important and due to the Ghost in the Shell related items containing numerous entries bearing the exact same name, it is more important than ever to have a franchise page to serve as a proper navigation and bring context and clarity to the media.

Examples of the ridiculous titles of the system Ghost in the Shell corresponds with a manga, a film adaption and an unrelated but based upon video game. Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is a tag that runs for 2 seasons of an anime, two video games bearing the same exact name but released on different systems (Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PS2) and its sequel Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (PSP)), another manga and novels. If the absolutely weird naming of the content wasn't enough, three distinct 'universes' seem to exist, so that Stand Alone Complex is based on, but distinct alternate universe. Same with the newly released Ghost in the Shell: Arise which is both a series of film and a manga with the same name. All of which bear the obvious prefix Ghost in the Shell, and the majority of the content is not even from the original creator anymore. Masamune Shirow's original manga may have started it, but it comprises about 10% of the material. A franchise page should not be primarily about the original manga in their fullest depth with the other franchise parts tacked on as an afterthought. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is listed as stale, but I am still watching this and really would like input on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


Opening comments by Ryulong

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.

I have had no problems working with Chris until he and Lucia began fighting over the formatting of the page after we came to an agreement to merge everything fairly recently. Both Lucia and I think a single page will suffice but Chris's actions to unmerge the page, his fight with Lucia, his work to produce an "under construction" live version for his claims of a 60k visits a month page, and his insistence that there be two pages to cover very similar subjects is keeping anything from moving forward. Also, Niemti, to my best understanding, is not for or against any version of the page, but Chris is latching onto a comment he made over similar actions taken on an unrelated article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've attempted to come up with a compromise between the two differing opinions on where the page should go with this edit, but Chris is now accusing me of edit warring because of these two edits, as he reverted between and I just thought I forgot to make the change in the first place.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lucia Black

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.
Ghost in the Shell is divided by several alternate series. Considering the article has the original media (manga) merged back, and all other alternate series have their own article and cover the media closest related to it, it only makes sense to cover the media closest related to the original media, and not so much on the other media thats more related to the alternate series (that are already covered in their own media). It would duplicate too much info to the point that it would make the other child articles virtually useless. Ryulong some what agrees with what ive said (if not completely). Chris insist his reasoning on that it is a franchise article, and should cover all media equally, in which case would only convolude the article as multiple series and adaptation share the same media but are less related to eachother.

EDIT:To clarify what i mean, there is Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex that fully details its respected media. But the TV series is the original Stand Alone Complex. And the same goes with Arise series. Unlike certain other stories, the Plot between the original nd its alternate universes are still similar enough to show they are based off the original series.Lucia Black (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Niemti

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.

I'm actually not really involved, but my proposition is that Chris & Ryu work out something on their own (without LB). That's also "closing", because I'm out. --Niemti (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell 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 All, and thanks for having patience. I've gone through the extensive talk page discussion and would like to ask some leading questions. How does Ghost in the Shell (the franchise) compare to other long standing Japanese culture phenomenons such as Full Metal Panic! and Naruto. I'm looking at the argued about section (The Publication history) and wondering if the 2nd through 4th paragraphs can be spun over to the list of chapters and re-titled "GitS manga", thereby giving a natural home for the content (by adjusting the title of the page) and gathering the nitty gritty details of the manga publication away from the franchise information. Please give your thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the "argued about section". This is a dispute over whether or not there should be a separate article dedicated solely to the original 3 manga volumes and keeping another article as the "franchise" (I swear if I see this word one more time I'm going to rip my hair out) article. Your proposal Hasteur effectively reverts everything to the status quo before merging the "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article to Ghost in the Shell and renaming the "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" article to List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. The way the article is set up now, as being about the manga first and any adaptations second, is how nearly every other anime article is set up, such as Sailor Moon and Naruto.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Simmer down... It was not a proposal, it was asking a question. I'm looking at the unified page and it seems like those 3 paragraphs that spend a significant amount of space talking about the "And this volume had a statuette with it" kind of details. I don't think that for the page talking about the entire collected works of the story universe(Manga, Anime, OVAs, Video Games, Soundtracks, figurines) the content is a little too detailed. Hasteur (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion still throws out a month of work. I don't think this would be much of a problem had the articles not existed in the previous state for about 8 years. While I do agree that soe of the minutae about what got released with what doesn't have its place on the main article (most of it seems trivial) the central article should be about the original piece of fiction as per WP:MOS-AM.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Unlike other mangas, each manga volume is a separate continuation. So detailing each one is due to them being separate it's not "ghost in the shell volume 1". The problem with making a franchise article and a separate manga article is that once split, both articles will cover practically the same. You see, the manga has spun out several alternate tellings that are too connected to the original manga. So splitting the manga will still have to cover those alternate tellings. The other issue is the media based on those alternate tellings. ChrisGualtieri (considering wants this to be a franchise article) wants to cover all media more related to their alternate telling more than the original media (manga), the soundtracks, the manga adaptations, etc.
That media is covered already in their respected article and makes things much more organized.Lucia Black (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Lucia gets it about half right. The original manga and its sequel (the other comprising 1.5) are distinct entities and are not typical in manga productions. Nothing about Ghost in the Shell is 'normal'. It is a collaborative series of works that represent different facets and events that are only connected by the character and theme. The plots are unrelated or contradictory. SAC is not adapted from the manga, it is a alternate universe and non-canonical body of works. We do not even contain mentions to a third of the franchises' titles and I am not counting artbooks and other unofficial publications. Ghost in the Shell is not a typical manga to anime adaption, it is the equivalent of Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek (film). And yes, Star Trek is a top-level topic (a better word for franchise?) for all things Star Trek related. This is not a franchise crusade, its about proper balance and scope within a large collection of works, which is best served by a broad overview of the topic Ghost in the Shell. As for policy arguments, the Ghost in the Shell manga (original and sequel) meets WP:GNG and WP:N. Bestseller status and numerous major mentions qualifies for independent articles, of which the majority of content can be split per WP:SPLIT. Also per WP:SS with the reason to split comes from the lede, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." It is not a problem with WP:CFORK because it would be in accordance with WP:SPINOFF and is very much highlighted by WP:RELART. The last issue is the the invoking of the Manual of Style (WP:MOS-AM) as a reason to merge these articles present an issue currently under discussion, but for immediate concern the reason why MOS-AM has no say about the split is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." These MOS-AM and other weak arguments from Lucia and Ryulong has been the source of this problem, but for the scope of this DRN, let's keep it to Ghost in the Shell alone. Other discussions at other pages will be on going, but Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell#Scope has the most recent conversation including a list of 30+ titles in the Ghost in the Shell franchise. I hate to make arbitrary calls on things, but if 20 meet WP:N and WP:GNG on their own merits, shouldn't the top level topic function as a concise overview of all those materials? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you need to stop making this subject out to be more than it really is and stop alphabet souping everybody into submission (there is some essay out there that says "don't try to list off WP page after WP page to sway your argument). The current manual of style (which is only under discussion because you started a discussion) suggests that the main article on any anime or manga should be about the original work.
There is no reason that we cannot provide a broad overview of the subject following discussion of the primary work of fiction, particularly because the original work of fiction is so much smaller in comparison to the plethora of works that followed it. Before anything happened the articles were not the best. At this stage your "broad overview" article looked like a piece of shit and the individual manga page was still superfluous at best. At least now we have something that is in line with similar articles on the project, even if you do not like the format. Your constant arguments that the article is too big per WP:SIZE (it's 35k at best) or that it should not focus on the manga are unfounded. And there is no proof that the 30+ other titles you list off meet any notability requirements. I'm also looking at the 2nd GIG page and thinking it's way too short and it could probably be merged into the Stand Alone Complex page but I won't be bold this time around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say, that I'm not half right about this. I've watched all the films, read all the mangas, watched all the episodes. They are very well connected not to mention them in the original manga page if split, meaning it will be a near duplicate.Lucia Black (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To Ryulong: Call alphabet soup if you want, I call them policies and editing guidelines. I've thoroughly cited numerous policies to which you do not seem capable of challenging so you are insistent upon objecting without offering evidence that my argument is flawed or wrong. Your point about challenging MOS-AM is on policy and I am not alone. With Nihonjoe stating, "...if there is enough reliably sourced material to create a separate article, then it is perfectly acceptable to do so. MOSAM should not and can not prevent this as this is enwiki policy and guidelines." Furthermore as I pointed out, MOS-AM does not require an article majorly about the original work, only to discuss the original in the introduction. My concise and broad overview of ALL the material which exists is what I want, there is far too much detail on the manga to warrant cramming everything onto the main page. Because it is so detailed I wanted it to have its own off-shoot, not necessarily to separate articles for the volumes, but a proper place to describe the work in detail, per WP:DETAIL. As for the 30+ titles meeting notability, many meet N or GNG, but for right now we don't even mention or discuss them in the existing articles. A clear coverage issue, but that is outside this DRN.
To Lucia Black: Your personal opinion does not matter as it is WP:OR and frankly, its incorrect. Reliable sources like the Anime Encyclopedia and the Production I.G. website use the terms "alternate universe", "re-imagining" and AE brings up the matter of questionable canon. As pointed out in my talk page post here. The "connection" is Motoko, Batou, Section 9 and theme, problem is even Motoko is not portrayed similarly in the media. And you do even note how distinct it is in this post. Yes the original manga deserves a mention for being the starting point of everything, but it is not important or tied to the manga for the majority of the content. The two films are, but those films are really single plots, and Innocence being a heavily adapted single chapter. Half a paragraph at most. And per WP:RELART, that would be acceptable. To put your mocking me from before, its "in accordance with WP:CFORK"[1] and the majority of your policy arguments are flawed. Need I bring up how you 'countered' my argument with: "OTHERSTUFFEXIST is an essay but in a nutshell, meaning commonly accepted."[2] Honestly, Wikipedia is not about !votes and actions should be rooted in good policy and common sense.
And just in case if anyone thinks I 'have to be right' about things. I was engaged in a dispute earlier about a link, with Boblv's arguments in opposition to my stance. I responded with this. I ended up striking my comment and going to 'neutral' with support for two issues tied to policy. When bested I have a history of striking my opposition and turning to neutral or support, because even if I don't agree, a good policy argument trumps my personal opinion. This content dispute is a concern for me because policy is being ignored for Lucia Black and Ryulong's preference. This DRN is to try and resolve this matter, but outside editors also are weighing in like this, but it is difficult and intimidating when the response that outside editors get. Typically with Ryulong's fury at the volunteer, Hasteur, trying to resolve this problem. Hasteur is volunteering his time to fix this dispute, its an act of charity and should not be treated so negatively for taking a 10 day old case and asking a simple question! And again, Hasteur, thanks for taking the time with this, and anyone else who decides to join the discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But you don't bring good points. You just constantly list policies you THINK help your case. OR is based upon adding questionable info unsourced. That's not the case here. WP:SS actually helps our case aswell because we would be summarizing things to just the key features. You have this way of arguing that derails the main point or rather you use other methods to counter argue. We're not ignoring policies because there is no policy that is actually helping your case.

Splitting from the manga would only cause a duplicate of the main article because the spin offs/alternate tellings are based on the original manga "Directly". WP:REDUNDANTFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, what you're doing is cherry picking policies and then listing off their acronyms in their arguments to try to get your way. I've attempted to compromise between Lucia's desire to have only one article and your desire to have two to have one nad a half but you will not let go of this idea that there needs to be a "franchise" page. And I was not "furious" but I lamented that Hasteur's only suggestion was to go back to a status quo that never worked well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of what WP:OR means and your claims of direct adaption is false. Reliable sources say otherwise, namely Production I.G. and the anime encyclopedia. From the I.G. Website to which Lucia actually dealt with, "Stand Alone Complex takes place in the year 2030, and it is based on the assumption that Major Motoko Kusanagi did not meet the Puppet Master in 2029. In other words, it stands as a separate parallel world to both Shirow Masamune's original comic and Director Oshii's movie. Motoko in this TV series uncompromisingly handles cases as the leader of Section 9, unlike her film version counterpart, who is portrayed as being insecure about herself."[3] With SSS, "Instead of looking for easy compromises, the staff bravely picked up the on-going story of the S.A.C. series and built up an entirely new chapter from the continuity of that context."[4]" Lucia, stop, just stop being disruptive with this. Your 'direct' issue fails because SAC is its own continuity. Reliable sources, not your opinion matter. You keep objecting to things, but you can not back them up and you argue for the sake of arguing. And Ryulong, if you think I am 'cherry picking' policies then that means you understand that my argument has a basis, because you cannot stand in the way of larger consensus. You complain that I do give details about what I want:
  • I want a full overview and defined scope of the media. With each work receiving about 200-300 words on the matter and its relevant split to the full article. Stand Alone Complex as the largest continuity will receive a larger portion. I will use official documents in the top-level Ghost in the Shell article to properly connect the works and other academic works about GITS to cover all its media and cultural impact.
I do not claim to know everything about the topic, but once this little spat is out of the way I am sure that all THREE of us can easily expand the content as Lucia does do good work on individual games. The core of the dispute is the structure of the work, and while the entire series of media was horribly underdeveloped, my vision of a proper main page and a 50kb sub-topics like the manga, SAC and the movies will take time to build out. It may seem like a lot of fuss, but until this matter is decided GITS will not improve because there is no 'compromise' its Lucia's way (1 article) or Ryulong's way(compromise which makes two articles but fills out neither), or my way (Two articles, with concise topic level overview and a dedicated manga page). I want to work together, but this ideological dispute has really taken a toll on all of us. I'd be willing to contend with a dangerous compromise on my part, if the topic-level Ghost in the Shell article fails to produce any results by the end of the month, then we go back to Ryulong or Lucia's suggestion. I'll need both of Ryulong and Lucia's cooperation to make it work though, but I just want a chance without the immediate axing of anything I add. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You always add an additional word to my previous statement and use that against me. I'm saying all of these alternate tellings are directly related to the original storyline. HOWEVER that does not mean I'm saying they are direct adaptations. Gits film is a loose adaptation of the main storyline of the first manga, gits 2: Innocence is the film sequel loosely based on gits manga chapter "robot rondo". Gits video game is based on the manga's universe. Stand Alone Complex's main story altered heavily, however, still strongly related to the original. Being a "relative" isn't denying that it isn't directly related to the original manga. Example: some of the episodes are based on chapters of the original manga. And the stand alone complex tv film (solid state society) is based on the original plot of the manga.
They all share the exact same characters, and the exact same story elements and setting. So all of them are still directly related to the manga enough to mention in the manga article IF it were to resplit. And that's the issue. Splitting the manga will only make a nea duplicate of the main article.
It seems wrong to base weight on article size. Especially when these articles are covered in their respected article. Its just too redundant.Lucia Black (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ugh, god damn it can we stop arguing over canonicity? This is not fucking important.
Chris, your suggestion that we go back to your preferred two article model of the franchise article (no matter what you call it this is what you want) and an article solely dedicated to the manga, and if it does not work out, then we revert to the merged form is not how Wikipedia works. We have to work together to get to a compromise, but at this point of time you still will not budge. You keep insisting that there has to be an article just on the print adaptation when that is not done anywhere else on the project in regards to any work of fiction that has had multiple media forms. You are right that this "franchise" option works in most places, but it does not look like it will work for Ghost in the Shell. There is just not enough out there to justify having an entirely separate article for the original manga, particularly when the discussion of the manga is still central to the discussion of all of the anime forms (regardless of whether one version is canon to another). You two need to stop arguing and picking over the production details and story elements to just look at what's necessary to present this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, characters may be the same but portrayals are different. Same as Star Trek the film and the original series, does not make them direct adaptations. Word choice is important. Keep spouting words, your view is not held by the makers of SAC and I proved that. Ryulong, more words that say nothing. I think this part of the lede for Motoko Kusanagi is enlightening, "Kusanagi's various incarnations in the manga, movies, and TV series all portray her differently. Since each of these series have an independent storyline, Kusanagi's physical and mental characteristics have been modified in different ways to reflect the focus of each respective story." You may not like having a place for the original work, but it does not belong at Ghost in the Shell, its proper place is Ghost in the Shell (manga). All this time you object without evidence or even refuting my arguments. It IS stupid to argue over canon and other things on a topic about structure of a page, but is a example of classic red herring. Lucia Black cannot counter any of my arguments and instead relies on logical fallacies to try and address it, the same as you did. Compromise works for many things, but as already made clear, the attempts thus far are a hijacking. If someone tries to hijack your car you don't "compromise" by sharing the vehicle. Every argument brought up to avoid a proper balanced page is terribly flawed. Let's go through the list
  • Lucia argued the franchise was non-notable
  • Ryulong and Lucia argue MOS-AM and proper merge, MOS-AM does not save it.
  • Ryulong and Lucia argue they are too related, disproven by the makers.
Honestly, its about time this stops, and for good. The 'compromise' is that the manga gets to have 50kb of content on its own page and gets tied into the main page as the original work in discussion. Somewhere about 1k words and a proper split as per policy. Any issues of 'oh that's redundant' is stopped by WP:RELART and WP:DETAIL because the introduction for a split article should be about one half the lede. Specifically, "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in child articles and in articles on specific subjects." and "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the child article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its specific part of the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered.". Okay? A "franchise" or "parent" or "top-level" article for Ghost in the Shell is acceptable, especially if we have 20 different articles to branch off to. Also, Akira (manga) and Akira (film) despite the Akira film being based on the on-going manga with its own ending. Also, it is cyberpunk and its anime. GITS was supposed/is the sci-fi successor of Akira. GITS has far more different media, plots and original works then Akira did. Now please stick to policy and arguments, I hate seeing strawmen, red herrings and other logical fallacies from you two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as you refuse to address any of my concerns I will no longer be participating in this dispute resolution until another uninvolved party attempts to read through this essay of yours. I mean, I don't understand why the hell you won't accept Ghost in the Shell and List of Ghost in the Shell chapters as they are now. There are two articles. One's dedicated to discussing the manga and the other isn't. You just want the locations to be the other way around.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You ask for policies, but policies don't even help your case. You don't use WP:UNDUE correctly, and you think WP:SS supports your claims for a split (but somehow ignore. It when we use it). The policies only confirm a split is generally possible under the right circumstances. However we still have WP:REDUNDANTFORK, which splitting an article would be too redundant. You always bring up size as a relevant point, but its not relevant at all.

Your comparison to Star Trek and Akira aren't solid at all. First of all, Akira manga/film articles only prove that the manga and anime shouldn't be merged. But that's not the issue. (Also the structure and organization is bad. A "live-action" film and "video games" are all linked to the film mainly over the original with no reasoning). They're both sci-fi doesn't merit a good comparison. When has genre ever affected an article's structure?

Here's the difference between Star Trek, and possibly every franchise ever released (Except Tenchi Muyo! But that article also needs work and maybe some merges). Star Trek has several spin offs unrelated to the original. Sure similar universe, but different time, different characters, etc.

Ghost in the Shell, on the other hand, are all alternate tellings of the original (with Arise being the only one that's a prequel). All spin offs are directly related to the original manga (except for the spin off media based on the original spin offs). Example, IF the manga would split, its loose film adaptation (its sequel), its playstation video game, the Stand Alone Complex, and Arise will still have to be mentioned in the manga article as all of those were inspired and also based on the original manga.

You try to use the differences as to what makes them unique, and what you consider similar is not enough. But what makes them similar is the core and what makes them related to the original manga directly. Example: If Star Trek had its franchise solely based on "allternate tellings" having loose adaptations, alternate story, yet also has the exact same characters and same universe, then Star Trek: The Original Series would be forced to mention those in its article aswell.

The creators only confirmed how different they are, but their still directly related. Its like saying "lemonade isn't related to lemons because the maker added water and sugar." WP:REDUNDANTFORK. That's a good enough reason not to split.Lucia Black (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ryulong, stop editing GITS, you removed 11,199 bytes of content altering the appearance of the page. I do not want a "list" I want a full manga page not your "compromise" of original manga focus and publication history on another. Lucia Black, your strawman arguments and your desire to merge everything is ridiculous. Lemon and Lemonade are distinct articles, REDUNDANTFORK only applies to DUPLICATION of content. Such as the numerous Boston Bombing pages that mention the exact same topics. I do not see how you can continue to argue such obviously false and distorted stances, while remaining ignorant of their intention. If there is a policy based reason for your objections, voice them. Otherwise, I think we are done here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing binding about this thing that doesn't mean I can't fix up the article in good faith while this is ongoing. What you can't do is constantly revert back to your preferred state of the article. More than half of those 11,199 bytes went to the list of chapters. The rest of it is unnecessary exposition on the various adaptations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris will now not allow me to edit the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing this between ourselves now on my talk page. And are working toward a resolution, it seems we want the same thing but call and refer to it differently. My effort to preserve the original dispute, as my good faith edits were removed and prevented, which was the reason I brought this here. Anyways... I think this DRN may close as I see a solution in sight with Ryulong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi guys. Sorry about the delay in me attending to this one. I'm not quite up to speed with the whole dispute - what stage are we at with the discussion here? Has any progress been made? I also note that some of the conversation above has been heated above, so let's step back a bit and see what we can do to work towards a compromise. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    No progress has been made because Chris is rejecting any compromise thrown his way that does not meet his personal ideas as to what should and should not be on the main article. He wants the scope of the article to cover everything that has been Ghost in the Shell in excruciating detail (while still having side articles) and will not allow it to be about the original manga first, with brief discussion of the other subjects. He wants a summary page for everything (the "franchise page") and a page solely dedicated to the original manga rather than the form I have instituted in my original merge where there is a page dedicated about 75% to the original manga, with the remaining 25% covering the other forms in brief, and a page dedicated to the extensive publication history that Chris found and wrote up.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

{outdent} That is not true, per basically all of WP:SS the excessive and unbalanced coverage of the original works belong on their own page. I will not argue individual articles for them, but having 1900 words and having 360 words to cover the other 30 something titles in the universe is the height of undue weight. I do not have to accept your "compromise" because while there exists two pages, that compromise serves only to spin off the publication history and the list of chapters, when that article should become the singular place for discussing in detail. You continue to alter the page and its content despite me informing you to stop, you will not let me edit, so you should not continue as well. You will not argue policy and the constant removal of content continues to whittle away our coverage of the entirety. So much damage has been dealt by both Ryulong and Lucia Black's content removals, this false belief in the original manga having to dominate and replace the long-standing top level (aka franchise) page has disrupted the articles for 6 months. Here are two versions. Original franchise article pre-dispute in Oct 2012 [5] After Lucia's edits and the start of my objection to this "original work" dominated page Jan 2013 [6] While the original manga coverage was poor, Lucia worked on the original manga page and then combined it to push out the much more popular and notable works. While nothing is perfect or complete on Wikipedia, it is eminently clear of Lucia's intention as she put it up for GA. The only fathomable reason I can see for the continued over-detail on the manga is that you want your work to displayed in the most prominent way possible even if it means ignoring policy and fabricating, defending and pushing false information as has repeatedly been done throughout this article. The simple fact that in 4 months of discussion you cannot cite, by policy, why your structure improves Wikipedia is an example of your weak arguments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I am just finding it impossible to discuss anything with you anymore because you will not budge on your insistence that we have this "franchise article" or "top-level article" or whatever you're calling it this week and an article dedicated to just the three books, and your constant edits to restore the version you prefer over the one that Lucia and I have been working on together. The article effectively follows the formats suggested by WP:MOS-AM at this stage, but you are rejecting that entirely because it gets in the way of your preferred state of the pages. You consistently see this as a franchise rather than one primary work and its many adaptations. Gundam is a franchise. Pokémon is a franchise. Survivor is a franchise. The Amazing Race is a franchise. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a franchise. Ghost in the Shell is not. You've brought up the 20+ or 30+ media related to Ghost in the Shell, I know. But that list of yours is still cut down to the three existing branches (the films, SAC, and ARISE) we already mention on the article, and that the article doesn't need to have extensive coverage on. You've rejected everything that's been proposed because it doesn't meet your vision and your excuses here are saying that Lucia and I don't have the alphabet soup of Wikipedia space links to back up our reasons for having the articles in the state we've been working on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. On another note, Chris, you always use this obscure way of discussion. For one, you mention size which isn't relevant, than you bring out guidelines, particularly WP:SS, WP:DETAIL, and WP:GNG combined to prove manga has to be split, but WP:GNG is only meant to prove if an article is notable, not whether an article should split. WP:SS and WP:DETAIL are guides to properly summarize content if split. If split, it would lead to WP.REDUNDANTFORK which means splitting will only cause the main article and the split to resemble too much.Lucia Black (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for providing more info. I tend to work on fictional articles myself, but I wonder if wider opinions have been sought from members at WikiProject Anime and Manga? I think it would assist if more participated in this discussion (or it was returned to the talk page/a section on WT:MANGA) rather than having an isolated discussion here. I don't think that this is a dispute we will resolve with a result of "User:A is wrong, User:B is correct" but will be a compromise of sorts. I'm happy to assist in guiding a discussion that takes place elsewhere, but I feel it is better suited to take place at a location where more can participate. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
All informal attempts at compromise have failed, though. Anything proposed or acted upon by myself and Lucia is rejected by Chris. And because he started this discussion he wants all discussion here rather than anywhere else.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong that is not true, between the two of us. Also other people have chimed in in various places. Some better then others. Here's a few examples in order:
  • Lucia, you've claimed that Chris is biased, without having any apparent reason. He admitted that he's a fan of the franchise himself, but how does that translate to bias against the article's nomination for GA status? I don't see any fault with Chris's behavior in any regard, and he appears to be attempting ultimately to improve the article. Furthermore, the edits he's making to the article seem to me unequivocally to be improving it, so I don't follow what you're saying when you claim that the improvements are "subjective", "changing the focus" or "changing the article". Rutebega (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) (first ANI)[7]
  • I'm not going to look too far back in the history of this, but I gather from looking at this old version and the current version is that Chris is adequately converting Ghost in the Shell's article away from its manga focus to a more broad media franchise; which I agree with. It isn't even that extensive to be of concern. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [8]
  • (...All the major franchise articles (and there are scores if not hundreds of them) are separate from their original works for a very good reason. I spent a good ammount of time separating the content and making a franchise infobox too. You've got, for example (the very first thing than came to my mind): Mad Max AND Mad Max (franchise) (and Mad Max (character)), or Max Payne and Max Payne (series) (and Max Payne (character), too). Or Star Wars and the stuff in Star Wars (disambiguation) (including "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, 1977 film, originally released as Star Wars", and even Star Wars (manga)). Make it Ghost in the Shell (franchise), if you need so (even as I'd rather keep it as the main article, like Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter are for the franchise), but otherwise revert your merge.-Niemti (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC) (talk page)
  • I understand both sides of the arguments. Both would work and are not against policies as far as I know. I prefer Chris' franchise version, which matches my ideas and the Gundam article, which has a strong divide between all three franchises; The argument of redundancy does not apply if there is a concise overview. I will probably drop out of this discussion if it continues to be a war between personal opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (talk page)
  • "Hi. I was asked to comment, and I agree with DragonZero. I like the idea of a concise franchise page that can give an overview of everything. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)"(talk page)
I would include Sjones23 comments, but he switches stances and didn't want to be involved in this that much and is on Wikibreak for exams. So while Lucia and Ryulong keep saying that there is no consensus it is because they protest so much that they drive everyone away and I.. like an idiot respond to them every single time. I'm sure that if the conversation was laid out like this with relevant policy and minimal discussion we would not be here right now. It is partly my fault for continuing to respond and disprove their arguments. MOS-AM is not a rulebook that usurps policy, WP:SS covers the matter explicitly, all of it. If you cannot raise an argument in policy then you have no case. The entire matter is silly and both of your reactions are based in a grudge, with Lucia trying to make essays with the appearance of policy while directing it towards me, "‎Current Projects: adding new possible essay so editors dont try to not be bad lawyers)" [9] And notably User:Lucia_Black/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_discussion. Though Lucia's grudge is a bit pronounced here User_talk:Ryulong#Compromises, it is not about the content it is about defeating me. With such comments like, "You're compromising too much just to find middle ground. And Chris knows if you continue to budge there would be no difference between "Ghost in the Shell (manga)" and "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and "If he doesn't want mediation, then that means he's willing to give up. Or at least showing sign of defeat." It is not about being right or wrong, its about the content, Lucia has made clear she will not budge, while I prefer 1000 words of content on the main page about the original and everything more detailed on another. It is twice that and in excessive detail, instead of losing it, I'd be happy to take Ryulong's List split off, but it includes publication, reception and censorship information that would turn it back into a full manga article. Both Lucia and Ryulong know this, the reason for the continuation of this dispute is purely attrition for Lucia to 'defeat' me. It seems to have stopped being about the content dispute for Lucia a long time ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ironic, I made that page to avoid bad lawyering and yet you use the exact same aggresive tactics. Stop deviating the discussion with irrelevancy. You made this huge statement of virtually nothing relevant. Why bring up I want to make an essay to avoid bad lawyers? Why bring up that I know this compromise is just a tool to get your way? Why bring up that you will eventually have to give up if you avoid mediation?
Oh I know, because you're trying to discredit me without bringing up a good point. Keep those things in talkpage. There not relevant here. I will not budge because I know there's no room for compromise.Lucia Black (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you two stop fighting? God damn this is why we can't get anywhere.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Ț
You're involved too. He admits he's using ur compromise as a tool to get his way. And in the end he just admitted what he's asking is what he personally prefers, not what's necessary. So there's no point.Lucia Black (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And you stop unindenting everything. God damn.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to see why this dispute has gotten to where it was.

—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And yet the history revolves around issues relating to Chris more than me. I'm trying to stick to the main discussion. Chris is the one bringing up irrelevant personal issues. All is left is mediationLucia Black (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The timeline is not the evidence needed. The bickering here and on talk pages is. I just forgot to change something when my mind shifted gears.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Back on topic (and at this point, we've made ourselves clear) Ryulong believes although there is a large number of media, the media falls into 3 distinct branches, film series, Arise series, Stand Alone Complex series and all branches connected directly related to the original manga. I agree with this, but not only that but because if the manga splits then we will have to mention most of the media directly related to it. Causing WP:REDUNDANTFORK.Lucia Black (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The timeline shows the dispute more clearly. And I believe that the only reason the manga was split off was because we had separate pages for "Man-Machine Interface" and "Human-Error Processer" as well. Now that they're merged there's no reason to have it all separate from the central article either.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
About the timeline, its patently false and is an attempt to game the system. I moved the manga centric content to the manga page and wanted to have a concise overview at the main page. It was never about removing content as Lucia had done, it was about preserving and expanding. Matters are policy based and you will refactor and alter and dodge any argument to persist. WP:SS covers what I want to do and you have never countered it. Your views are in the minority, I may be the sole current opposition to your path. Your claims of WP:CFORK has been bested, yet Lucia still brings up the redundant matter even when it has been explained to her. The community has already weighed in and policy stands, the baseless and stalling tactics and the personal attacks waged against me are not proper. Lucia's merge is misguided and disruptive. Ryulong means well, while I do not like some of the actions taken, I am not perfect either. The 'stop editing' argument is not a one-way street. If this debate is to continue only policy and reason, not baseless and conduct actions, should follow. For that my challenge is:
  • WP:SS supports a main page when the sub-topic is notable. Prove otherwise
  • WP:REDUNDANTFORK does not apply, it is not duplicating content. Prove otherwise.

If no policy based or strong arguments in the spirit of the policy can be made, then the result should be obvious, a main page to cover all topics of GITS and a manga page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:SS does not enforce or encourage a split from the original media from the main article. It only gives advice to summarize during post-split. Also if you read WP:SS, it actually HURTS your cause.
Your proposal brings all media into one article and disrupt the three branches of the subseries (that have their own respected article). But WP:SS states "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." But that's not what you want. The link to the subtopic article will have to be spread throughout to the main article and not just link to the subtopic article, but the subtopic article's section. Why? Because all ARISE, Stand alone complex, and film series' spin off media would be mentioned in the main article and all that media is already mentioned in the respected subtopic article. Its not independent media, its media that is part of the subtopic.
In order for this to work (as I previously attempted to compromise), the main article would have to be divided into series, not media.
WP:REDUNDANTFORK states to avoid splits that cause duplication. And all the subseries are directly related to the manga. When the manga is split, it will still have to mention it's film adaptation, the film's sequel the prequel series ARISE, and the alternate telling STAND ALONE COMPLEX. So 70%-80% of the manga article will still be duplicating the Main article's info. The differences will be one article will "summarize" the original media, the second will "focus" on it. But other than that, same info. So yeah, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is still relevant because its key info related to the original media (manga).Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
And no, Lucia, Chris wants to have a comprehensive article on everything GITS but give it five branches (manga, films, video games, SAC, ARISE) rather than follow the existing model for anime and manga articles that discuss the original work as the central topic and dedicate other articles to discuss the various other media. The only thing that makes GITS different from say Sailor Moon is how SAC was treated as a semi-independent entity and it requires a whole separate set of articles dedicated to it. If there was just a standard retelling of the manga in an animated form instead of the alternate universe in SAC we would not have this problem and instead of all these multiple pages there would have been from the start a "List of Ghost in the Shell chapters" and "List of Ghost in the Shell episodes".—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
How the hell is the timeline an attempt to game the system? I used diffs to show exactly what had happened. And Chris, you're the one with the poor arguments by dismissing Lucia and myself because we can't find some WP: link to twist into supporting our idea. I could perhaps say that the "franchise" of Ghost in the Shell is not notable because there are no reliable sources that discuss the "franchise" as a whole and all of the references I've ever seen used are for the individual parts and not the whole. I don't think I've ever seen critical analysis of everything "Ghost in the Shell"; just its various adaptations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, the Anime Encyclopedia disagrees with your assessment of 'directly' related and as Ryulong Ghost in the Shell is not a standard retelling. The manga has the Puppetmaster events which spawned the movie, SAC universe there was no puppetmaster and its an alternate universe/timeline as from Production I.G.. Do I want five sections? I don't know, but I do want the SAC universe materials to be expanded upon, and have that aspect of its universe at least covered in the main page. Even Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex is flawed, but at least it is better then the current topic of discussion. Star wars original and expanded universe seems to be a similar to this. Lucia, you never made an actual argument, your position does not stand. Redunantfork does not even apply, it has to be the same subject as pointed out before. SS allows and welcomes discussion of notable sub-topics and gives two FA articles as proof of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we stop arguing about the content of the fiction? And Chris, you are misquoting WP:SS. It's a guide on how to discuss subtopics within the main topic article. It does not give any particular instructions as to when an article should be split. If it is done, then the guidelines there explain how to cover it. However, it is somewhat clear that you want the pages treated the way you see fit rather than two independent editors who came to the same conclusion about them 3 months apart. Also, you've not addressed my statement that "Ghost in the Shell the franchise" isn't notable on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris, you say anime encyclopedia disagrees with me, but you don't expand on that. You just don't personally agree that its directly related to the manga. you just proved you know very little about the topic. Solid State Society is all about the Puppeteer (Puppet Master). SAC is that Motoko didn't meet the Puppet Master in the year 2029, And every now and then, your true intentions come up. You don't want the article to focus on the original media because it overshadows (not really) stand alone complex, but they all have their own article, and that's what you don't understand. If one day ARISE overshadows Stand Alone complex will the main article have to over even more for Arise? They have their own article. So the need to expand stand alone complex in the main article is unnecessary.Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong, from SS sections of note: Basic technique, first two paragraphs of Rationale and all of WP:DETAIL and specifically, "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs.", but you didn't even need to get out of the lede to learn, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." Which leads back to GNG and N with the nature of splitting, "... it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article." Oh course don't forget, "Each subtopic or child article is an encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." So yes, it is appropriate that the summary and lead be similar. I am not misquoting the policy, the manga meets N and GNG and is covered in far greater detail and that's less then half of what could be there. Secondly, Lucia you have already revealed your true intention and assumption of bad faith and numerous personal attacks, SSS is not Puppetmaster. For starters read Puppet Master (Ghost in the Shell) then read the plot of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society. Start being serious and stop disrupting. This entire dispute is committed to driving away dissenting opinions and complicate the matter so tightly that it is futile. I don't even think you care about the content anymore, as Lucia indicated its about defeating me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Enough arguing about the content of the fiction you two. And anyway, this all still boils down to "Ghost in the Shell should be a franchise page and the manga should have its own separate article". I have attempted to compromise this point by having the list of chapters, but you still want to move anything that makes the main article focused on the real world aspects of the manga to the list of chapters, rendering everything the way you and only you seem to see fit. But we should shut up, as Sergecross says below, so we can actually make some headway instead of continuing this massive argument ad nauseum.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Ryulong. For now this all boils down to preference on your part, Chris. WP:SS only gives advice to post split how articles should probably be summarized. GNG yes has the "N" for notability in GNG. But you're ignoring the first "G" which is for General. GNG follows the basic for making an article. Combining these policies/guideline together to imply both support that a split doesn't help your cause. If this was based on my preferences, I wouldn't bother being against a separate article. But the problem is, it involves WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The fork will only cause a duplicate of the main article. That's all I would say.Lucia Black (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

All three of you need to calm down. None of the three of you are convincing any of the other three of anything, and you're making it impossible to decipher with all of these gigantic, wall of text responses. (Or at least so difficult that no one wants to bother to try to follow all of this.) Let some of the DRN volunteers catch up and intervene some, because nothing is progressing with this approach. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has manually archived the talk page to set up a clean slate for yet another discussion on changing the scope of the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:56, 7 May 2013 (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.

16:10

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
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.
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is about the reliability of the sources used in 16:10#Industry moves away from 16:10 in 2008 to 16:9, and possibly other sources used elsewhere in the article (as one of the editors involved in the dispute has removed them, claiming they're unreliable). The dispute may also be about whether or not the article misrepresents the opinions and viewpoints taken from those sources.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted a request for WP:3O, which was answered by User:Solarra, but she appears to be inactive now.

How do you think we can help?

You can help reach consensus by assessing the reliability of the sources used in the article and whether or not the article represents and summarises the sources fairly and accurately.

Opening comments by Indrek

In my opinion, the removal a number of sources and related content (for the inclusion of which there was existing editor consensus prior to the dispute) from the article by User:HGJ345 and User:QAQUAU constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. I'm also not satisfied with the reasons they have given for the removal of the sources, which don't seem to have any basis in actual Wikipedia policies and guidelines and instead seem to be based on said editors' personal interpretation of the truthfulness of the sources, as well as a possible bias on the subject as a whole. Overall, the quality of the article has suffered as a result of their edits. Indrek (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by HGJ345

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 Solarra

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.
  • As User:Indrek said, I was brought into this issue regarding a dispute between three editors. Two felt that some of the sources Indrek has used in the article did not meet WP:RS. Though technically not a WP:3O issue, I responded to see if I could resolve the dispute nonetheless. As I said on the talk page of the article in question [10]and [11] appear to be written as blog entries, even though one is written on Engadget, it still is a blog entry on that site and to me does not meet WP:RS. The third entry here is written as an editorial piece as to the negatives of one aspect ratio over another, and while informative is an editorial and that individuals opinion. Wikipedia would not allow an editorial on World Net Daily claiming 'proof' Barack Obama was born in Kenya on Wikipedia, this situation is no different, editorials do not meet WP:RS. Looking over the edit history of the article and the individual users as well as the talk page, the other 2 users seem to agree with me on all three of these points. I suggest we work collectively to find sources that meet WP:RS and source the information that Indrek clearly feels is important to the article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 01:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by QAQUAU

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.

Sockpuppetry notice

As a result of a WP:SPI investigation, both User:HGJ345 and User:QAQUAU have been found to be sockpuppets, and have been blocked from Wikipedia as a result. This means that the only editors remaining in the dispute are User:Solarra and myself. Unless Solarra objects, I suggest that this DR/N request be closed and the discussion continued on the article's talk page, where we can surely reach an amicable consensus now that the disruptive editor has been dealt with. Indrek (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

16:10 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.
This dispute seems to have resolved itself. I'd appreciate it if a volunteer would close this out in a few hours if there are no objections from the parties. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:18, 4 May 2013 (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.

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The race was controversial, as it is supported by a government that is currently engaged in a civil uprising with its own people. The dispute centres on how this controversy should be represented in the article. Some people believe that the controversy is significant enough to merit inclusion in the article lead; the other school of thought holds that since the protest movement was not as active as it was in 2011 or 2012, characterising the race as "controversial" in article lead puts undue weight on the issue, and that covering them further down the page would be the most appriopriate way forwad. Where the protests in 2011 led to the cancellation of the race, and the protests in 2012 were so widespread that they have their own article, the protests in 2013 did not actually affect the race in any way shape, or form; therefore, relative to the events of previous years, it can be argued that the controversy is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article lead.

Conversely, the opposing point of view suggests that because there is a large number of media sources describing the race as "controversial" (though it should be noted that some of the sources are simply reprinting an article originally run by a news agency like Reuters), the controversy merits inclusion in the article lead, and that the events of previous years have no bearing on the content of an invidivual article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been several attempts to resolve the dispute through the article talk page, but to no avail. I decided to bring the issue to DRN because of this message on my talk page, cautioning me against edit-warring, which came from the person I was on the verge of edit-warring with - which made me feel as if it was an attempt to force me out of the discussion.

How do you think we can help?

By answering this question: do related articles influence one another, or do they exist in isolation? Although the individual races took place twelve months apart, the protests that affected them are a part of the same movement. As this is an article about the race first and foremost, how do we best represent the issue: in the lead because of the secondary sources, or further down the page because the impact of the protests was less than in previous years?

Opening comments by Mohamed CJ

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.

First time here! First I would like to clarify that the issue is not only with using the term "controversial", but with mentioning the controversy (the race going ahead despite ongoing protests and human rights violations) in the lead. The exact sentence being challenged is: The controversial race went ahead despite ongoing protests which had been taking place since the cancellation of the 2011 event.

The list of sources Prisonermonkeys mentioned above (full list here) deal only with the use of the word "controversial" to describe the event, but before that I also provided another set of sources (here), handily picked only from sports websites/sections that covered both the race and the protests. I also offered to provide over 120 sources when Prisonermonkeys said he didn't have sources for protest section [12]. I reaffirm my argument that Wikipedia should give each view point the same weight that reliable sources do and I have provided many examples for reliable sources. The other party on the other hand have provided none so far, which led me to ask them to do that just Yesterday [13].

Also I would like to make it clear that I understand the controversy this year is less prominent than last year per reliable sources "One man died last year near the scene of the demonstrations, but this year there has been less attention on the race from rights groups and the protests so far have been smaller and less violent."Associated Press. But I also affirm that just like Prisonermonkeys mentioned, last year controversy was so big. It probably deserved a whole paragraph in the lead of the main article (i.e. 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix) and also it's own article (i.e. 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests). I don't see why should this mean that this year's controversy shouldn't get a mention (a single line!) in the lead. Yes, it is smaller than last year's, but it is still widely covered as demonstrated using reliable sources. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Gruesome Foursome

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.

Prisonermonkeys edits are frankly indefensible. He simply keeps restating his personal opinions about what mentioning the controversy in the opening means, while completely and utterly ignoring the obvious reality as reflected in reliable sources - the protests were a significant aspect of the 2013 race. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should care about his personal view that because they were less than 2011 or 2012, that means they were insignificant. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Bahrain Grand Prix discussion

I'm a volunteer here at DRN, and I'd be happy to help. Let me read through the article & comments above, and I will post some questions. --Noleander (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello @Noleander: thanks for taking the case. Waiting to hear from you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Some sources

Okay, I've read the article, the talk page, and some sources. WP:LEAD states that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." So, the question we need to ask is whether the controversies were "important" or "prominent". The way to determine that is to examine the sources and see how prominently they discuss the purported controversies. I used Google News (the race only happened a couple of weeks ago, so I did not look for references in books) and grabbed the top 7 news articles on "Bahrain Grand Prix":

It appears that news articles on the topic tend to fall into two categories (a) high-level political articles aimed at a broad audience; and (b) racing-oriented articles aimed at Formula One fans. The former seem to mention the controversy, the latter do not. Because the controversy is mentioned by several very important news sources (BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera) and in fact is often the main point of the news article, it should certainly be mentioned in the lead. The controversies did not dominate the actual conduct of the race, therefore, the facts of the race (date, winner, track, etc) should be mentioned first in the lead, and the controversy near the end.

Turning to the question of whether the article should use the phrase "controversial race": per WP:CRITICISM, emphasis on "controversy" itself, without context, should be avoided, if possible. Better is to use words that are factual and specific to the controversy and let the reader draw their own conclusions (that is, do not cause readers to pre-judge the matter). E.g. rather than saying "the race was controversial", say "anti-government protesters staged protests ..."; instead of "The controversial race went ahead despite ongoing protests ..." say "The race went ahead despite ongoing protests ...". The only reason the article, in the encyclopedia's voice, should call it a "controversial race" is if an overwhelming number of sources designate it thusly. I see that some sources do use that phrase (see a list in the article Talk page), but many sources do not (especially the articles that dont mention the protests at all). For that reason, my recommendation is that the lead avoid the phrase "controversial race" and instead describe the controversy in other words (e.g. "protests against the government policy on .."). The section of the article on the protests can include lots more detail, and could include the phrase "controversial race" because the detail can provide context for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I re-read the above, I see that it sounds like I am making a binding policy conclusion. In fact, the above comment is just my opinion ... a starting point for more discussion. If all parties can live with my recommendation, that is great. Otherwise, the discussion can continue, of course. --Noleander (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I see your opinion as fair and balanced, and I thank you again for your involvement (and time). Since this is a weight issue, we need to decide how much of the lead/article body is devoted to the race and how much to protests (e.g. should the lead only contain one line about protests or add another line to it? should the protest section be expanded by one/two paragraphs or kept as one long paragraph?). Thus, I ask you kindly if you could look into that. It would be helpful if you widened your Google News search using terms such as "Bahrain f1", "Bahrain f1 race" or "Bahrain formula one" in order to get more accurate/representative results. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on the sources I've reviewed, the WP:WEIGHT policy suggests that the Protests section could occupy 10% to 40% of the article ... in no case more than 50%. The section could contain two or three paragraphs, provided that the sources supply enough encyclopedic information (i.e. there may only be enough for 1 paragraph). As for the lead: I would say one small paragraph at the end of the lead ... maybe 2 or 3 sentences. --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Great. Let's see if my colleagues can agree with that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that we wait one more day, and if no responses received by then, we close this case with the presumption that the above resolution is acceptable. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2013 (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.


List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

173.49.121.149 keeps changing official English Dubbed information on an English Wiki to information revolving around a unofficial fansubbed Japanese version of the Anime. I told him on his talk page that since this is an English Wiki, we go by the English version of the Anime. But he ignored all three of my warnings.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Other than reverting his edits in the proper 24 hour time frames, I've given him three warnings already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.49.121.149

How do you think we can help?

This is the first report I have ever written, so I'm sort of not keen on asking what to do, but it would be nice if you could get him to stop changing official information to unofficial information from a fansubbed version.

Opening comments by 173.49.121.149

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.

List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes 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.
That is a link to infringing content and it is not an official account. It cannot be used. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Are these alright; http://www.tv.com/shows/kirby-right-back-at-ya/episodes/; http://www.ovguide.com/tv/kirby_right_back_at_ya.htm; http://epguides.com/KirbyRightBackatYa/; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnMr7aHtThE; this video to the left showcases some Official English titles from the Offical Kirby TV Nintendo Wii Channel. The video was also shown on an official Nintendo Website http://www.officialnintendomagazine.co.uk/28167/kirby-tv-video-shows-off-new-wii-channel/. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The list is in terrible condition and it needs to be completely redone. I will do this now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
He keeps changing official English information to fansubbed Japanese information, even if the subs are accurate or not, what's official is official and on an English Wiki, the English names are used just like how a Japanese Wiki would use Japanese names also. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Article_names_and_disambiguation, articles must use the most commonly used English language names. An official name is not necessarily the most common one, but in this case, the official English names are more common than the ones taken from a fansub created by online hobbyists.--xanchester (t) 05:54, 29 April 2013 (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.

Digital rights management

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

During discussion on the talk page, personal attacks was made by a user under the username SudoGhost. I asked the editor to stop and focus on the content, but the personal attacks continued. Since I do not want to discuss the personal attacks on the talk page, I removed it, but the personal attacks was promptly reverted back.

The personal attacks consist of accusations of bias and using weasel words such as "odd coincidence" because I happen to have a small subset of my edits on the articles of GNU, [FSF]], and Richard Stallman, This however is just a very small subset of articles I have edited, and my edit history goes well over 30-50 articles over the span of years since January 2008 (before that, IP edits). Such claim is an clear attempt to misrepresents my edits. The claim that my edit would be "the exact wording that the FSF pejoratively uses" is also directly false, as my focus has been and still is the inconsistent phrasing that the article describe access control technologies, and the actually article here on Wikipedia about access control technologies. The edit I suggested came directly from reading the first paragraph, and following the first wikilink to find more, and the reaction of finding the inconsistency in how the two articles describe the same technology.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked politely first on the talk page, and then on the users talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Frame discussions, and help get focus on the content and stop the personal attacks.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

Accusing someone of personal attacks without evidence can be considered a personal attack, so I don't think unsubstantiated accusations of that type are productive in any capacity, nor are they accurate. Pointing out that a contributor's edit falls in line with their near-singular focus on Wikipedia is not a personal attack. If an editor goes out of their way to claim that they have "no personal opinion" as if that carries some kind of weight, it should not be unexpected when it is pointed out that their edits suggest otherwise. If an editor is going to claim that such a thing is "an attack" and then make an edit summary suggesting that others are using their "personal opinion", that appears to be holding other editors to a standard that they themselves do not seem willing to meet. In the future the editor should refrain from making claims of personal attacks where there are none. I have nothing further to say on the matter of the editor's accusation of personal attacks, so long as the editor refrains from making inaccurate accusations in the future. - SudoGhost 13:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Digital rights management discussion

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'd be happy to help with this issue. As you both probably know from the description of the DRN process at the top of this page, we are not allowed to discuss behavior or conduct issues here. So, we are limited to talking about the underlying content issues in the Digital rights management article. Could both parties please briefly summarize, here, what the underlying content issue is? (Note: The talk page suggests that the issue is "Is DRM access control technology, or access control and authorization technology? " but I want you both to confirm that is still the issue). Please do not mention the other editor or their behavior in your summary, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The article leads beings with a sentence that defines DRM as a class of controversial access control technologies. Through the use of wikilink, a reader can then follow to the access control article that defines access control as the selective restriction of access to a place or other resource. The act of accessing may mean consuming, entering, or using. Permission to access a resource is called authorization. However, back on the DRM article, instead of using the definition found on the access control, access control is redefined as intent to limit the use of digital content. Since limit might refer to permissions as well as restrictions, I found this to add inconsistency with the wording of access control technologies, and thus wanted that the article be changed to either use the definition of access control technologies, or provide context in such a way that no inconsistency can be perceived by reading first the DRM article and then the linked access control article. As complication, the sources on the subject do not share a common description. Digital Rights Management: Technological, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects (E-bok från Google) (link) was the first hit on google books on the search term "Digital Rights Management", and it has two definitions and neither is the phrase access control technology. Afterward, two new sources was added to the article: Computer Forensics: Investigating Network Intrusions and Cybercrime (link2) and Architecting Secure Software Systems (link3), the first using a very similar description as the article (could be WP:CIRCULAR case), while the other one calls its access control technology. Both of those last sources is found by looking specifically for access control and Digital rights management on google books search. Doing a similar narrow search, one can also find books that describe authorization as being part of DRM such as Digital Rights Management: Monetizing and Protecting Content (link4).
So to sum up: The underlying content issue is around the inconsistency in defining DRM as a set of access control, while the two articles access control and Digital rights management uses two different definition for describing what access control is. Any fix that removes such inconsistency, be that an inclusion of authorization technology as part of DRM, or rephrasing as the first source defines DRM, will either way resolve the identified issue. Belorn (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Let's wait for SudoGhost to provide their summary of the content issue before we start a conversation. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This DRN discussion was opened solely on the basis of accusing me of personal attacks, and was only modified after I had commented. I have nothing further to say in a discussion opened solely to attack me. - SudoGhost 08:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, participation in the DRN process is voluntary, so if you don't want to discuss the scope/definition of the DRM article that is fine. Belorn: If you still feel there is a dispute about the scope/definition of the DRM araticle, you should open a Request for Comment on the issue (within the DRM article's talk page). That is a dispute resolution process that can proceed even if one or more editors are not interested in participating. --Noleander (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and I will likely follow up as you suggest. Its pity that my updated was written and submitted during the same time as SudoGhost reply (within 4m), thus creating the possibility of the interpertation that it was a reply. Anyway, thanks Noleander for your role in trying to frame the discussion around the content. Belorn (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2013 (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.

Austrian School

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

An edit was reverted as OR. A case was opened at no original research noticeboard. Only 3 editors participated in the case which was archived. one editor commented, I'm at a loss to see the point of this debate. It reads like a personal power struggle to "win" (or refuse to "lose") rather than a discussion of OR. Darkstar seems to have provided a number of sources which say that old Copperknickers has been credited as the originator of the QTM.[14] I have ask the reverting editor to restore the edit with no success. I have also suggested the editor resubmit the case to no original research noticeboard for clarification, which has not happened.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none

How do you think we can help?

encourage the editor to self revert, or seek a new hearing at no original research noticeboard.

Opening comments by SPECIFICO

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 goethean

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.

Austrian School 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.

Infobox of article on Kaitlyn Maher

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

User has invented a genre I have never heard of. I put in genre which I believed to describe the subject. I asked the other editor to discuss. Editor ignores talk page. After my edit was reverted, I reverted the reversion with a cited content which that editor reverted.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

Would like to have this editor warned. Semi protect page.

Opening comments by 75.74.143.185

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.

Infobox of article on Kaitlyn Maher 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.

Syrian civil war

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Adding of irrelevant information about Israel to a discussion. When I asked the user to take it to another section of the talk page they claimed it was relevant to the current discussion. The discussion is an issue the involvement of Iraq and Turkey in the Syrian civil war.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried explaining why I feel this irrelevant but to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Decide if this information matters in the context of this discussion.

Opening comments by Funkymonk

This is a complete waste of time. Does every minor talk page dispute need to be slapped on here? For the comments in question see:[15] Pug6666 fails to realise that "explaining" his own opinion is not necessarily enough to change the opinion of others. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war 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.

List of populated places in Serbia

Latest comment: 11 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion
  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article is a list of populated places in Serbia (excluding Kosovo). There is a dispute as to whether the article should use a map of Serbia (excluding Kosovo), or a map that includes Kosovo as part of Serbia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talkpage

How do you think we can help?

Independent input might help resolve the disagreement, otherwise it'll turn into another Balkan edit-war. Which map is more appropriate?

Opening comments by Zetatrans

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.

I do not favour a map which would make Kosovo appear to be a part of Serbia and I agree Kosovo should be discluded from demographic counts. There is the question of neutral presentation and the map more editors wish to see is one which outlines Kosovo but marks it a different colour. Zetatrans (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Independent input might help resolve the disagreement", that's a joke surely. Either there is a disagreement or there isn't and one of the issues is that pushing for an "independent input" is what causes the disagreement. Zetatrans (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Independent input" means input from an uninvolved editor. It has nothing to do with any political position. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Accept my apology. Though you must be able to see the "independent" connection coming from Bobrayner. In general, I welcome uninvolved input. Thanks. Zetatrans (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by 23 editor

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.

I agree with Zetatrans proposal that Kosovo should be included in the map but coloured differently than the rest of Serbian territory for neutral representation. 23 editor (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a sensitive subject for many, I think it would be best if the article was left without a map of any sort. Although this decision would remove the visuals from the article, it is in my opinion a better solution than simply presenting a map excluding Kosovo, since this solution would inherantly be POV. If Bob comes up with a better solution any time soon, then I suggest that he put it forward. 23 editor (talk) 21:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

List of populated places in Serbia 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 am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Welcome. I've looked at the talk page discussion and at the discussion above. My only interest is in what is best for this encyclopedia and from that point of view I truly could not care less about the competing national interests involved here. I note that the lede of this article begins with "This is the list of populated places in Serbia (excluding Kosovo)" (emphasis added) and that the articles List of populated places in Kosovo by Municipality and List of populated places in Kosovo by Albanian name also exist. (Let me recommend that in light of the exclusion of Kosovo in this article, links to those articles probably ought to be included in the "See also" section of this article.) In light of those facts, I see no encyclopedic reason to include Kosovo in the map. Could Zetatrans or 23 editor say why it should? Please note that in this noticeboard we only talk about edits not editors, so in giving your response, please do not refer to the motives or biases of any other editor or make any other comments about any other editor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, Zetatrans has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Evlekis. *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
48-hour closing notice: The only editor to discuss this matter on the article talk page prior to this filing was the now-blocked Zetatrans, and his edits are now subject to being removed as block evasion. Unless 23 editor comes forward by 19:00 UTC on 9 May to defend the inclusion of Kosovo (see my last edit above), or unless there is some indication by that time that Zetatrans might be unblocked, I intend to close this listing for insufficient talk page discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
@23 editor: I'm sorry, but I fail to grasp how it is "inherently POV" to include a map of Kosovo in an article which expressly omits Kosovo. You might argue that it is inherently POV for the article to not include Kosovo, but that's a different discussion which is not relevant here since at this point in time the article does, in fact, omit Kosovo. (If you wish to debate that point, feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page, but it's not appropriate here.) In light of that fact, I cannot see how it is POV to omit Kosovo from the map. Again, can you explain? As for the sensitivity issue, it is a well-established policy at Wikipedia that Wikipedia will not take such sensitivities into consideration, see WP:NOTCENSORED, so that argument cannot bear on this issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It is POV to exclude Kosovo from a map of Serbia because it implies a pro-Albanian point of view. As half of the world's states recognize Serbia with Kosovo within its borders, I fail to see what the problem is here. As far as I'm concerned, this article should either be with an image of Serbia with Kosovo included (coloured differently, as before) or we should completely avoid using a map of Serbia in the article. Like you said, the fact that the Kosovo population and towns are not included in the article should be discussed on the article's talk page. As for WP:NOTCENSORED, the only thing being "censored" here is Albanian irredentism. This is not censorship, this is maintaining neutrality within an article. But I fail to see how this (WP:NOTCENSORED) relates to discussions of neutrality, though (maybe I didn't word my idea clearly before ?) 23 editor (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, I could not care less about the merits of whether or whether not Kosovo is or is not part of Serbia, I'm only concerned about the encyclopedia. It is clearly not POV to exclude Kosovo from a map in an article which expressly excludes Kosovo. To the contrary, to include it would imply a POV since at this point its inclusion is wholly irrelevant to what the article is currently about. The issue over whether the article has an improper POV by expressly excluding Kosovo is not part of the dispute which was brought to this forum and has not been adequately discussed at the article talk page in order to bring it here. If you would like to start that discussion at the article talk page (perhaps as a suggestion to merge this article and List of populated places in Kosovo by Municipality) and agree to drop the map dispute, I'll close this discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm beginning to lose track of what the dispute is here. This thing is starting to go around in circles. This is my stance: the best way to compromise in this situation is to not include any picture (such as in the article List of towns in Japan, where a picture is likewise not included). If you have a better solution, I'd appreciate it if you would share, and I'd also appreciate if User:Bobrayner (who dragged us all down here in the first place) would come and give his input, as well. Regards, 23 editor (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on or implying anything about your last response, let me note that the map was, in fact, was removed a few days back from the article by an editor not listed in this dispute and that the removal has not been reverted or disputed on the article talk page. Since this dispute was over which map to use, that dispute may now be moot and I'm going to close this listing as such in a couple of days if nothing more is asserted here and nothing changes at the article before then. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (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.

Ashkenazi Jews

Latest comment: 11 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

Basically, many years ago some users reached a "consensus" regarding who should be in the info box of the Ashkenazi Jews article. However, looking through the archive you can see the consensus had a lot of problems, the main problem being the fact Sholem Aleichem was not in the info box.

About half a year ago from what I saw in the "View history" a new collage was used, with Sholem Aleichem in it, and it lasted there almost half a year with no complaints, until user Avaya1 started reverting it to the old version, basically starting a massive revert war about which of the versions to use:

Old version, promoted by Avaya1

The version with Sholem Aleichem which lasted there for half a year.

The supporters of the old version say the new one "doesn't have a consensus", while the supporters of the newer version say that it does have consensus because so man people were not pleased with the fact the old version lacks Sholem Aleichem (the greatest name in Yiddish culture, with Yiddish being the language of Ashkenazi Jews).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In order to reach a consensus on the topic for ones and for all, I started a discussion on the talk page, asking which version do people prefer. As the majority showed, they clearly prefer the "newer" version, with Sholem Aleichem in it.

However, Avaya1 continues reverting the collage, and called on an admin called Jayjg to "arbitrate" the discussion, which the Archive shows is clearly not natural in the discussion. The link to the discussion is: [16]

How do you think we can help?

I think there are two things which will help resolve it:

1. First of all, we need a neutral administrator who never took part in the discussion.

2. Second, it needs to be clear that Wikipedia doesn't work like "we made a consensus years ago so every new consensus is illegitimate", because that's the impression I get from what Avaya1 and Jayjg are saying. Except those two, everyone on the talk page said Sholem Aleichem needs to be in the collage and most said they want Botvinnik in it.

Opening comments by 90.196.60.197

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 fact is, the majority of the people clearly spoke out. Sholem Aleichem has to be in the collage. The article is about Ashkenazi Jews, and the language of Ashkenazi Jews is Yiddish. Sholem Aleichem is the biggest name in Yiddish culture, and the fact that it's so obvious for 99% of those who took part in that discussion that he should be in the collage just highlights he has to be in it!

Botvinnik represents the Jewish achievements in chess and helps balance the number of people from East Europe and West Europe in the collage. Most people supported the idea of him being in the collage.

The argument of Avaya1 against removing von Neumann from the collage is "you have to have at least one mathematician in the collage" (to be fair, van Neumann was removed half a year ago), basically making out rules on the spot without any logic (why mathematician? Why not biologist?). But that's not the main problem, the main problem is in my opinion he ignores what the majority of the people are supporting. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Jimhoward72

The problem with the collage currently is that there are no criteria for who should be included. Any new person that comes along to edit it randomly inserts their favorite Ashkenazi Jew (with the vast majority currently in the collage being Ashkenazis who wrote in German (Freud, Einstein, Herzl, etc, etc). The article states many times that Yiddish is *the* traditional language used by Ashkenazi Jews, however, Yiddish writers are almost completely unrepresented in the collage. This comes across as a clear bias against Yiddish in favor of the more "assimilated" European Jews. It's absurd that the only stellar example of a Yiddish author, Scholem Aleichem, is continually being removed from the collage. (And in fact, more well-known Yiddish authors need to be added, including some that are Nobel prize winners).Jimhoward72 (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's so true! I agree that the collage could have been done better but I get why we shouldn't do many changes at the same time, because still the old selection was agreed upon long time ago (very long time ago), but my main problem is the fact that Avaya1 doesn't respect any new consensuses. It's not like we randomly decided "Let's add Sholem Aleichem", it's something that was brought up on the talk page many times. Eventually we started a discussion when everyone except Avaya1 clearly stated that Sholem Aleichem MUST be in the collage and they prefer the latest version of the selection which includes him and Botvinnik, and STILL Avaya1 chooses to ignore it and revert it. I have never seen such disrespect to a majority opinion in my life!
It's so simple - everybody wants Sholem Aleichem in, he needs to be in. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Debresser

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.

First of all, I think there should be pictures. As opposed to those who prefer the infobox to be without pictures at all. I think Sholom Aleichem should definitely be included, for the reasons mention above by 90.196.60.197. I am neutral as to the 2 others, but oppose Trotsky, for the reasons mentioned on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, I think that Avaya1 is too hasty to press the revert button, and I know Jayjg as an stuborn editor for many years on many articles. I would be happy if this process would affect some changes in their behavior on Wikipedia, apart from solving the content dispute. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Avaya1

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 Jayjg

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.

Ashkenazi Jews 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.

Welcome to DRN. Though I'm a regular editor here, I'm not taking or opening this case at this time, but I have a few questions which I think need to be considered:

  • Is everyone who is involved of the opinion that dispute resolution is needed at this point, or is this a matter still better handled on the article talk page?
  • Is everyone who is involved in the current discussion included here? I have some considerable doubt about that point. If not, and there's more than two or three who are missing, then this listing should be closed and reopened using this listing form so the bot will notify everyone who is added. It's possible to add people manually, adding them to the list using {{User| <username>}}, creating an opening comments section with the character-limit warning, and notifying them on their user talk page with {{subst:drn-notice}}, but it's the obligation of whoever adds them to do that, not the volunteer community's. For that reason, it's usually better just to close and reopen with everyone included via the listing form.
  • There is a good bit of discussion about existing consensus. If there is a clear existing consensus that the pictures are fine as they are, and there's just a sub-consensus group of editors arguing for a new consensus to be formed, then there's nothing to do here and this listing sould be closed. If anyone contends that is so, would they please provide a tally of who's on what side in their opening comments section, above? Note that a prior consensus, even if it's old, is still an existing consensus until there's enough new weight of numbers and arguments to put it into question.

Again, I'm not taking or opening this case at this point in time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the questions! I will try to answer them all:
  • The matter is handled well on the talk page, in fact, judging by the discussion there is a clear consensus! The vast majority of the people said they want Sholem Aleichem and Botvinnik in the image. The problem is that the minority (1 person) which is against that consensus keeps on reverting the collage to the old selection, that's where the problem comes in. On the talk page it looks fine, the consensus/majority is too large to have a full-scale war. Here is the link to the discussion: [17]
  • Those who I added are the ones who actually gave long explanations to their positions on the talk page (I added both sides). If you think I should add anyone else please tell me and I will add them manually.
  • That's the thing, no one is changing the whole selection, it's not like people are totally deleting the old selection and make a totally new selection. The new consensus is literally about two specific people which almost everybody want to see in the collage. On the surface it seems fine, there is a discussion, almost everybody besides one person said Sholem Aleichem should be in the collage, and the vast majority said Botvinnik should be in the collage. Logic says those changes should be kept and respected due to the fact the vast majority clearly reached a consensus, but literally 1-2 people who objected it keep reverting it in the name of the "old consensus".
I hope I understood the questions right and answered them :-) 90.196.60.197 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
And please notice, Avaya1 and Jayjg still didn't comment on this discussion. They got the notification about it on their talk pages, but they didn't write anything. For me it's just another example of how they "respect" a discussion and consensus! Their only arguments being "a consensus was reached many years ago" and "we must have at least one mathematician in the collage", I think the reason is because they know there is nothing else they can say. Reverting is easier then talking. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing notice: Since this is primarily a dispute between 90.196.60.197 and Avaya1 and since Avaya1, despite having been notified, has continued to edit Wikipedia without choosing to join in here, there is not much we can do. If Avaya1 does not choose to make an opening statement by 17:00 UTC tomorrow May 10, this listing will be closed as futile. Should that occur, and if anyone should desire to pursue this matter further, I would recommend making a request for comments at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on the matter! That's the point, it's not between me and Avaya1. It's between all those people who achieved a consensus, and Avaya1 who refuses to acknowledge it and reverts it. The question is, what can be done when he again reverts the consensus achieved in the discussion? Who can stop him? I think it's a big deal he didn't write a comment in this discussion, it shows exactly what he thinks of other people's opinions. When this discussion will be closed, that's when he will revert again. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
90-something, it is worth your while to be a little more positive. And if any one editor would edit war without partaking in discussion, it would be fairly easy to have him blocked. So let's take this one step at a time. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If I ever register to Wikipedia I will use 90-something as my nickname :-) I like how it sounds! Makes sense, but I'm still shocked that people like Avaya1 "work their way" around Wikipedia so freely . It's like we took him to court, and he didn't get a sentence because he didn't show up to the trial. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I have not evaluated the consensus or lack thereof in this case, but let me note that if there is a clear consensus then continuing to revert in its face is disruptive editing which can be a ground for blocking or banning at WP:ANI if it persists after appropriate warning has been given on the user's talk page. I am not saying that is happening in this case, but only providing that information. If you are less than certain about the consensus, you can make a request for an administrator to evaluate it at WP:AN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the thing, usually Avaya1 doesn't do it by breaking the 3rr, but he simple does lets say one today, another one in 2 days, another 3 in a week, do you know what I mean? That's why it's hard to ban him on the 3rr. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive editing does not require a 3RR violation. Continued reversion or introduction of material in opposition to a clear and established consensus is enough. Again, I'm not taking a position on whether or not that is happening here, just saying what the rules are. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (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.

Ceramic foam

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

This dispute involves multiple articles, I have included the latest one for convenience. This editor, 203.163.103.7 (talk) refuses to abide by WP:ENGVAR and MOS:DATE despite having it cited and explained several times. He is ignoring the suggestions to preserve existing varieties of English and date formats in articles, and changing them gratuitously to British style. It can be argued that strong national ties to a subject can warrant this change, but he does not cite that in edit summaries and instead just edit-wars to keep his changes in.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Several warning templates: [18] [19] [20] and an extended discussion here: [21].

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps some more polite voices can get past the wall of WP:IDHT and impress on this editor the importance of applying MOS guidelines uniformly.

Opening comments by 203.163.103.7

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.

Ceramic foam 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.

Talk:Fractal antenna

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The information about Fractal Antenna is biased and false. Please review or remove this false information. It seems that the original creator for that page is working on removing all effort to correct it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted on Talk to show where it is false.

How do you think we can help?

Please seek more experts in this areas for fair comments and opinions.

Opening comments by 173.206.130.144

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 Rcooley

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.

Talk:Fractal antenna 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.

There are multiple forms

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am being slandered and abused on several pages. I asked for the comments to be removed and for someone to contact me privately if they had any issue with that request. I contact ALL the email addresses given on the site and they all ignored me. My request was then turned into a further opportunity to abuse and slander me. I have again requested this to be removed and I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not. Now I am being threatened by several users and one user called Pickette is slandering me and acusing me of all sorts of wikipedia abuse. Why will nobody do something?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have sent several emails to all the published addresses.

How do you think we can help?

Please contact me directly and HELP.

Opening comments by

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.

There are multiple forms 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.

Walid Husayin

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

The user "Plot_Spoiler" has been reverting my edits not only on the main article "Walid Husayin" but even deleting my edits of the Talk page trying to stop any debate about it.

I think the issue is very clear, "Waleed Husayin" is a plagiarizer who steals from other sites, including Reuters, I provided e.g. for that the link to Reuters article and another link to exactly the same article written by Reuters. It is either Reuters stealing the article from Waleed or vice versa, no third option. Unless you think Reuters which listed the name of the writer and editor of the its article is less relaible than Waleed, then Waleed is the plagiarizer of the whole article and we should be able to write the negative side and not not make Wikipedia an encyclopedia for "heroes".

This is the content removed, also from Talk page

Waleed is a plagiarizer Why "Plot Spoiler" reverted my following addition although it has both the copy of Waleed's blog post and the post of Reuters' website? is Reuters not a trusted source? "Waleed has been accused of plagiarizing much of the posts of his blogs, in English and more in Arabic, he claimed authorship of articles written by other writers, e.g. the whole article on Reuters' website entitled "The Higgs particle - what it is and what it does" written by Chris Wickham[14] is exactly copied and claimed to be written by Waleed at his English blog called "Proud Atheist" [15].

[14] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSBRE86306W20120704

[15] http://proud-a.blogspot.fr/2012/07/higgs-particle-what-it-is-and-what-it.html

Atheerkt (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regards

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He is deleting even what I write on the Talk page trying to silence any talk about it

How do you think we can help?

look the two identical pages, (it is only one example of plagiarizing Waleed has done), or if you can check more his blog which has been used as a source in the Wiki page, and google some to see other Plagiarization as his blog is full with it, then talk to "Plot Spoiler" to allow a neutral article about Waleed and accept the negative side and not only the positive one portraying him as a successful blogger, or help with reverting his reverts of my addition "Atheerkt" at the article of Waleed.

Opening comments by Plot_Spoiler

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.

Talk:Walid Husayin 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.

Ashok Malik

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
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

Users involved

Dispute overview

I wish to post Ashok Malik's views on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Malik's wikipedia page. Narendra Modi is not only the Chief Minister of Gujarat, he is also being projected as a future Prime Minister by many quarters of the Indian media and by some quarters of his own party. Modi is a controversial figure since he was Chief Minister of Gujarat during the Gujarat communal riots of 2002 and there are various allegations against Modi related to these riots. At any rate, Narendra Modi is a public figure holding a high public office and i do not see why Ashok Malik's views supporting and defending Modi cannot be referred to in the wikipedia page of Malik. Particularly so since these views of Malik are gleaned from Malik's own article published in a reputed publication. But User:MohitSingh claims that Malik's views on particular individuals cannot be a part of the wikipedia page of Malik and he has deleted my edits pertaining to mentioning Malik's endorsement of Modi. My point is that i am adding Malik's views on an individual who is well known to the Indian public and who continues to occupy high public office. If there is any individual well known to the Indian public, and particularly so if that individual occupies high public office, then Malik's views on that individual can legitimately be added to Malik's wikipedia page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried discussing this with User:MohitSingh on the talk page of the article

How do you think we can help?

Please clarify the wikipedia guidelines to me and MohitSingh on the talk page as to whether Ashok Malik's endorsement of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (in an article published by Malik in a reputed publication) can legitimately be added to Malik's wikipedia page.

Opening comments by User:MohitSingh

First, I would like to tell that it was me who started the concerned discussion on the talk page to avoid the revert war. The edits which I had removed are as follows:

  • 00:58, 25 April 2013 : Ashok Malik is a strong supporter and defender of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. I had reverted this edit which was replaced with the below:
  • 18:25, 8 May 2013 : Ashok Malik has praised, supported, and defended Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Secondly, I do not disagree that Narendra Modi is not a popular and famous public figure. Therefore the references to the issues that he is a Prime Ministerial candidate, his relation to riots, him (allegedly) being a controversial figure etc. are unnecessary and also irrelevant.

Thirdly, the concerned page is a Biography page and hence it must adhere to the Wiki BLP Policy.

In relation the impugned issue, I contend that the edits made by the Soham321 are editor’s own judgement as there is no direct evidence of the same in the reference provided or anywhere else online.

My arguments are:

  1. A journalist may write several articles in support of different leaders, this doesn’t mean that all those views have to be included in his biography page. This may make a BLP lose its original purpose. The impugned edits are not suitable in such a small Wiki BLP of Malik's. There is no section which discusses his opinion on other areas of his expertise viz India’s political economy, foreign policy etc.
  2. Wikipedia:WELLKNOWN#Public_figures provides: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
In relation to above I contend submit that the reference cited by the Soham321 does not anywhere provide that Malik is a strong supporter and defender of Modi. Rather the article cited is an article written by Malik himself. It is Soham321’s own judgment that the article provides that Malik is a supporter of Modi.
  1. Unless any article directly provide that Malik is a supporter or defender of Modi, the removed data should not be added to the page.
  2. Arguendo, even if we assume that he is a supporter, I do not feel that it is of so much relevance that it has to be included in a BLP for the reasons provided above that him being a journalist, he may write such articles.
  3. Making a personal opinion/judgement on a senior journalist is not good which is not backed by any strong reference is wrong.
  4. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content also provides that any burden of proof to restore the deleted data rests on the User trying to keep it which has to be done only after reaching a consensus. I again submit that I had myself started the discussion on the talk page but Soham321 just put his comment on the talk page and restored it without reaching a consensus as required by the policy.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ashok Malik 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 and I'll help in resolving this. Could I have everyone read, WP:ABOUTSELF first because Malik's own views can be used to support his own opinion. However, it is Malik's biography and this addition will unbalance it and lack proper context. Until the page is more then a few fragments, it detracts from the subject's focus towards another individual. Political party affiliations if reliably sourced are acceptable, but specific stances on individuals rarely meet relevancy requirements. Your thoughts? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Chris. So as i understand you agree that Malik's own views can be used to support his opinion. Further any political affiliations of Malik (in this case his strong defense and praise and support for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi) can be referred to by giving a reference to Malik's own article published in a reputed publication. Your concern about 'specific stances on individuals rarely meeting relevancy requirements' is well taken, but in this case we are referring to Malik's views on Narendra Modi who is a very controversial figure in India. Narendra Modi is the Chief Minister of Gujarat and several sitting and retired Supreme Court judges have held him directly or indirectly responsible for communal riots in Gujarat in which by unofficial accounts more than two thousand people are believed to have been killed. Narendra Modi is also being projected as a Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 Indian elections by certain sections of the media and certain sections of his party. Considering that Narendra Modi is a very divisive and controversial figure, and considering the Indian polity is completely polarized between people who are pro-Modi or anti-Modi i think it is appropriate to include Malik's views on Modi in his wikipedia page. Consider also the wikipedia pages of other media figures in the U.S.. For instance, Bill O'Reilly. His wikipedia page clearly states his political preferences and his views on certain individuals well known to the public. This is the same for other left wing and right wing media figures whose wikipedia pages exist. We would have to make drastic changes to all these wikipedia pages if MohitSingh's desire to not include Malik's views on Modi (given by Malik in an article he has himself written in a reputed publication) in the wikipedia page on Malik. I also believe that in a very real way we are gagging Ashok Malik. After all he has publicly praised, supported, and defended Narendra Modi. Why should we try to hide or conceal his support for Narendra Modi, who not only holds high public office but is a potential Prime Ministerial candidate besides being a controversial figure. Considering the supreme importance of Narendra Modi in the current Indian political context, gagging Malik on his wikipedia page by not letting his views on such an important individual be published in his wikipedia page is an attempt at censorship and concealment and against the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion. Your comment that we should not include Malik's views on Modi 'until the page is more than a few fragments' is also well taken but in my opinion Malik's views on Modi do not detract attention from Malik; rather, they inform the reader more about Malik by providing insights about Malik's political leanings which in my opinion should not be concealed. --Soham321 (talk)
The issue is that it will seem unbalanced if added; and the matter of endorsing a candidate is not the same as Bill O'Reilly whose job is to comment on such matters. It would be more appropriate to list support on Modi's page citing Malik's views, but not to have Malik's views on Modi on Malik's page. If it is that important; could we at least have 1500-2000 words on Malik before we get to the Modi matter? You seem very knowledgeable about the subject and our coverage is lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
There are so many public figures, officials and journalists who have an opinion on Modi that Modi's wikipedia page will read like a novel if we start including the views of journalists, officials, and public figures on Modi's page. Ashok Malik is a senior journalist who writes in newspapers and magazines and appears on television shows--just like Bill O'Reilly. Just as it is Bill O'Reilly's job to comment on such matters it is also Ashok Malik's job to comment on such matters. I am not able to understand on what basis you are differentiating between Ashok Malik and Bill O'Reilly. Both are senior journalists and if Bill's views on certain personalities can be given on his wikipedia page, if Bill can be described as a 'conservative' in his wikipedia page, then i fail to understand why Malik's political leanings cannot also be identified. Having said this if you insist that Malik's views on Modi should not be added till Malik's wikipedia page has more content i will accept your decision and bide my time. --Soham321 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
It is preferred to expand with the content, but if he has a confirmed political affiliation make a minor note of it, just don't go with 'endorse, praised and defends' or some other form. Keep it simple like, "Malik is a registered member of <party>". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. I will wait to add this content after the article has expanded a bit. Also please give a few more examples of how I can keep it simple. I do not believe Malik is registered with any political party. This is similar to Bill O'Reilly being registered as an independent but Bill's political leanings are clearly mentioned in his Wikipedia page.Here is an extract from Malik's Times of India article (BJP is the main opposition party in India, and Modi is a BJP leader):The Modi that excites India is the one who has made Gujarat India's Shenzhen, who has converted a trading society into a manufacturing economy and who has sold his voters the dream of becoming India's first middle-class state. Such aspirations are not unique to Gujarat and should, really, be the bedrock of an all-India right-wing party. It is this Modi who is the BJP's natural face for 2014. It is this Modi who has now become an undeniable power centre in the party and probably holds a veto as to the choice of its next president. It is this Modi who the BJP awaits. --Soham321 (talk)
Specifically, I do not see that as an endorsement. It reads like a segment from the BBC; seriously, try saying it aloud and the tone while favorable to Modi, is not the same as 'I personally endorse and support Modi for <reasons>.' or something of that effect. I do not think there is sufficient distinction on Malik's personal opinions in that piece to warrant claiming his biography as such. O'Reilly basically has to do what he does to keep his job, but I am not too familiar with his show, think I got a signed book of his I read through, but never met him personally. Political leanings change with the wind; especially within party lines. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
ok I accept your decision. I may return to this issue if Malik uses stronger language for Modi in future. For instance if he uses words like endorse or support.--Soham321 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:02, 11 May 2013 (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.

An Bord Pleanála

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments4 people in discussion
  – This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article is about a state institution that is quasi-judicial. In effect it is the highest 'court' in Ireland for planning matters. I added a section outlining a recent High Court judgment which found a recent decision of the institution had been biased. Quite a serious and significant finding by the High Court against another state institution.

That section was added in August 2012. It has citations.

Almost immediately User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer tried to delete the section claiming "POV and soapbox". That deletion was reverted and apart from some very questionable edits by a new user called User_talk:Pleanala which were all reverted the section was left alone.

That is until 10 April 2013 when User:Blue-Haired_Lawyer has started to delete the section again. This time he claims its because WP:UNDUE.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion on the article page

How do you think we can help?

by providing an outsider's perspective

Opening comments by Blue-Haired_Lawyer

An Bord Pleanala is an Irish administrative tribunal which hears appeals from local councils concerning planning decisions. It hears thousands of cases a year. While the Usk decision was quite controversial, its current billing on the article is completely out of proportion. There was no issue of systemic bias, just one particular decision where the board ignored the directions of a High Court judge on how a case was to be considered after the initial decision had been struck down.

Sun ladder seems intent on making a false inference that because: '[t]he Board is supposed to be unbiased in 100% of its cases. Being biased in just one case is an incredible perversion of justice by the highest "court" on planing matters in Ireland. It raises questions about the fairness of every other case decided by the Board.' It doesn't and as it stands the article gives undue weight to this particular controversy. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by RashersTierney

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.

What ever happened to User:Lapsed Pacifist? RashersTierney (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

An Bord Pleanála 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.

  DRN Volunteer Note: One party was left off of the list of participants I have added RashersTierney (talk · contribs) to the list. please note I am not taking this case. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hello every one I've had a chance to read over the talk page, and familiarize myself with the article. Provided no one has an objection to me assisting with this dispute I'm going to open this up for discussion. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Cameron. Thanks for taking this case. I'm not really sure of the procedures here. What do you mean by opening this up for discussion? I think we've all kind of set out our stalls. Do you have a view on the dispute? Sun Ladder (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I probably could have been more direct in my opening statement, my apologies. Before I give my views, I would like to hear from blue haired lawyer on why they think UNDUE applies. I think it would be helpful for me to fully understand where both editors are coming from. In the mean time would you care to enlighten me on why you think the information should stay (if you could include relevant policies it would be helpful for me to see where your views come from)? My goal is for both editors to develop an understanding of each other's point of view and then develop a compromise. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I approached you because I noticed you had recently contributed to the article or on the talk page, if you do not wish to participate you are under no requirement to do so. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. DRN volunteers usually ask if recent editors would like to participate. If you are willing I would like to hear your perspective on the issue. Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • An Bord Pleanála [ABP] is a powerful state institution. It is the 'court' that has the final say on all planing matters for the entire country.
The Irish High Court found that ABP had made biased decisions based on unfathomable reasoning. That is an extremely important and very troubling finding by the High Court against a state institution that is supposed to be entirely impartial, unbiased and fair to all citizens, 100% of the time.
I added a two sentence section with reliable, verifiable, archived citations highlighting the High Court's finding.
Straight away Blue Haired Lawyer deleted the section, giving one reason (POV and soapbox). After being restored the section stayed intact for 7 months until recently when Blue Haired Lawyer again, unilaterally decided the section should be deleted, this time for an entirely different reason (UNDUE).
It would seem that Blue Haired Lawyer just doesn't like the negative section. And his unilateral deletion appears to be censorship.
The manner of the deletion, unilateral, with various different excuses at different times, with out the courtesy of a discussion on the article's Talk Page, or notifying the editor whose work he was deleting also compounds the perception of censorship. For whatever real reason, he just doesn't want the negative section in the article.
Both censorship and not liking and are not valid reasons for deletions on Wikipedia.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior)
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it.
There was a discussion at the TP. You [One editor] didn't like the way consensus was going and decided to do a bit of forum shopping. RashersTierney (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@RashersTierney: Please remember to comment on content not the editor. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The place to discuss content is the Talk Page. I was bringing to attention a matter of behaviour which is contrary to policy. RashersTierney (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sun Ladder, I am going over your response right now, I will wait to comment until we have heard from Blue Haired Lawyer (their last edit was the 26th of April so I will give them A few days to respond)--Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated to the content dispute (DRN does not comment on editor behavior)
The following discussion has been closed by Cameron11598. Please do not modify it.
@RashersTierney. I think you're mistaken. I started the discussion on the Talk Page. I got one reply from Blue Haired Lawyer and he then just continued with his deletions
You made one reply that I presumed related to the one sentence you deleted - which I didn't contest or undo (I don't agree with that deletion, but I was willing to compromise and thought the removal of that sentence might satisfy Blue Haired Lawyer and put an end to his deletions - it didn't)
I presumed by only deleting that last sentence and leaving the other two you agreed that they were ok. That is the only consensus I can see.
But from there, Blue Haired Lawyer just kept on deleting the rest of the section- he made no further attempt at discussion. So he'd delete and I'd restore that went on for a bit. Until I decide that it was pointless and that's why I put in a request for help here.
It was only then that Blue Haired Lawyer started to show a bit of courtesy and undid his own deletion and placed the {{undue}} tag on the article.Sun Ladder (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I probably should have added the tag ages ago. My reason for the deletion of the section remains the same. It picks out one (admittedly fairly significant) controversy giving it undue prominence relative to the subject matter as a whole. While the section is verifiable, its presentation is selective. Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issued regarding how the board should determine cases where it is asked to "re-decide" a decision which had previously been quashed. There was no issue of systemic bias. The bias was that the people who had previously decided the case decided it again. Moreover "objective bias" sounds worse than it is. There was no finding that the board were biased, just that there was a reasonable apprehension that they could have been biased. I could edit the section to reflect these points but it would, IMHO, get us past the undue point so I just deleted it. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise?

  • I don't have an objection to a re-write per se. But I do think there are some important differences between Blue Haired Layer's view and mine. For example:
Where Blue Haired Lawyer says "Yes the board were found to be objectively bias but it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" highlights a key difference between our views on the section.
Where he says "it was just an issue regarding how the board should determine cases…" is an attempt at diminishing and soften the judgement. Adding "it was just an" is a subjective (POV) attempt to lessen the High Court's judgment.
Take away the "it was just an" and you are down to a fundamental and very important function of the board:
"it was an issue regarding how the board should determine cases."
That one of the most fundamental functions of the board should have been found by the High Court to have been biased is a very serious and significant issue and shouldn't be diminished.
Again where Blue Haired Lawyer say "objective bias sounds worse than it is" is his subjective view (POV) that again is an attempt to lessen the judgement.
Which all seems a bit contradictory to his opening line that the judgment is an "admittedly fairly significant" one.
So I'm not sure how a rewrite would bridge that gap Sun Ladder (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As the article is now I do think the section is in violation of WP:NPOV so it does need a bit of a rewrite. It is borderline on WP:UNDUE. Perhaps if you were to provide a rewrite for review, we could see if it mutually acceptable to both you and blue hard lawyer. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I might have my wires crossed here but do you mean me to do the rewrite? If so I'm not sure that makes sense. I've already written the two sentence section. I've kept it to an absolute minimum with verifiable citations. I don't see there is an WP:NPOV issue and I don't agree its WP:UNDUE. So I don't think I should be the one doing the rewrite if you see what I mean. If I was to write any more I would add a third sentences that contextualizes the first two sentences. Something along the lines of "At a minimum the judge's ruling raises questions about the Board's competence." Sun Ladder (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I retract my statements about the NPOV violation I misread a part of the policy which lead to a slight confusion on my part. I do think it does need to be expanded upon if it is going to be included; such as the implications and changes that resulted from the judges ruling, Otherwise it does come off as a boarderline UNDUE. An example of changes that were caused by this ruling that could be included would be if they changed how they determined cases. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately there were no changes made as a result of the ruling (this is Ireland we're talking about). The next nearest thing that I could write about is the effect that the judgment had on the actual development the case was about. So, what if I added the following?:
"The ruling raises questions about Board's impartiality and competence. Plans for the Usk landfill were scrapped." Sun Ladder (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that is fine, going off of the undue guidelines as I understand them the information does not qualify as undue. It is still boarderline undue however I do not see a problem with its inclusion. I'm going to close this on Monday at 2:53pm pacific time(UTC-7) if no one registers any objections before then --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I made that edit on the article. Should I remove the {{undue|date=April 2013}} too? Sun Ladder (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot see that the edits have improved matters. If anything they have made them worse. The section now makes a synthesis without attributing it as an individual's opinion or being able to back it up. Sun Ladder has completely failed to show how the Usk decision has such enormous ramifications for the board based as it was on limited facts. Very few decisions of An Bord Pleanala are struck down by the courts and the Usk case only really concerns the treatment of those cases when they are remitted to the board to be decided again. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not opinion. It's the direct implication of the judge's ruling:
The decision was found to be biased.
The decision was made by the Board.
Therefore that calls into question the Board's impartiality.

The reasoning for the decision was found to be "unfathomable" and explanations found to be "deeply flawed."
Therefore that calls into question the Board's competence.

That Blue Haired Lawyer can't see the obvious implications is curious. It reinforces the perception of censorship/ not liking Sun Ladder (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm going to pass this onto another DRN volunteer, I am going to be unable to have reliable access to a computer for the next month or so[hence the retired status on my talk page]. My apologies. Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Thanks for your help up to now. See you later. Sun Ladder (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews article

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion
  – This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am requesting for some help on the Erica Andrews article. It has been hijacked by 3 authors who refuse to collaborate or listen to reason. They do not appear to know the material well on this person and have disregarded arguments from me about information to be included in the article that adds depth to it. I realize some information may not be able to be sourced but it is information that is true about the person. An example is that Erica Andrews did appear in some music videos. I know this as I knew her before she passed away. She can even be seen in the music videos albeit a cameo/small role. Unfortunately unlike movies, music videos do not list their full cast. Another example if Erica Andrews appeared on Maury Povich's shows and she can be seen in YouTube videos of the episodes. I have cited according to Wikipedia AV Media guidelines and yet these authors have removed information - thus denying a reader of good information about Erica and her work. I have done extensive research on Erica Andrews and have deep interest in her work and her life. One author blatantly deletes information without regard for how it adds to the article. I have told him/her that if the information requires more citation, then please assist by doing research to find out more and add to the article instead of blatant information deletion which harms the article. None of them wants to listen and have decided somehow that my edits are unworthy no matter even if they are sourced information. Though I have listed citations according to Wikipedia standards which includes citing from a printed book, citing according to Wikipedia's AV Media guidelines, they have deleted information from the article without wanting to discuss with me. They have engaged in an edit war with me. The bulk of the article was authored by me before these 3 editors came upon it. Please assist or contact me to help me.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have written on the authors' talk page and the article's talk page to explain my views and to request for them to help by doing more research for content to add instead of rampant destruction. If a source isn't verifiable enough, then help to find more sources instead of deletion. They refused to listen and continue to revert all my changes even though the content is cited. There seems to be no other method but to reach out for dispute resolution and assistance for this article.

How do you think we can help?

Please review article, contact me if you have questions about the content. The article should not be the battleground for an edit war just because these authors have taken a dislike to me. From their talk pages - They seem to have a history of deleting content of other authors without contacting the authors or assisting politely.

Opening comments by Little green rosetta

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.

Coffee pusher hits the nail on the head below. The sourcing is just not up to standards. What I hope this DR accomplishes is to educate Lightspeedx about what constitutes a RS on wikipedia.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Qworty

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 Coffeepusher

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:Lightspeedx has been adding information to the Erica Andrews article that is either poorly sourced or no source at all under the claim that it "adds depth" to the article. When I came to the article, due to a call on the biography of living person's noticeboard, major chunks of the article were sourced exclusively to primary sources such as playbills and myspace accounts, which is a violation of WP:BLP sourcing requirements. The three editors named above agree that proper sourcing should be maintained on a BLP, but lightspeedx thinks it is more important to insert information about local shows and cameo appearances than it is to source the article with WP:RS.

Myself and several other editors have tried to work with Lightspeedx concerning proper sourcing, on both personal talk pages as well as the talk page of the article. Based on the amount of discussion regarding this article I think this may be a case of WP:IDHTCoffeepusher (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Braveyoda

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 Absurdist1968

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.

Erica Andrews article 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 User:Howicus, a (new) volunteer at DRN. I've read up on the dispute, but I'm not entirely sure what the content issues are. A few questions: Lightspeedx, does this revision of the article [22] contain the information that you have wanted to add? If not, what is this information, and what references will you use to source it? And by the way, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism, as you did here [23], unless it's very obvious. WP:VAND is very clear on what is and is not vandalism, and what Little green rosetta did, isn't. --Howicus (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I notified User:Braveyoda and User:Absurdist1968, both of whom made edits to this page while the editing dispute was ongoing. Howicus (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  Note to DRN volunteer: I have added Braveyoda and Absurdist1968 to the list of users involved, and have created an "Opening Comments" section for those users --Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any interest in continuing this or has it gone stale? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as User:Lightspeedx-who's one side of the dispute-hasn't edited since the 1st, I would say it's stale. Maybe we could reopen it if Lightspeedx comes back. Howicus (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Howicus, I haven't forgotten about this article. I haven't edited because every edit I make to the page is deleted immediately by Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta. I end up being in some vicious edit war with them which becomes extremely stressful and counter productive. The loser in the situation being the Erica Andrews article. Every suggestion I make, no matter what it is deleted. All requests for Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta to work on research to discover new material to add or lends itself to support deletion falls on deaf ears as they are more interested in deletion than collaboration or even listening to reason. They insist that many of Andrews' achievements are not sufficiently cited and to this, I would even argue that other entertainers' Wikipedia articles do not even require THAT much citation for their work. I read Braveyoda's note on your talkpage and totally agree with him/her that Wikipedia articles on other entertainers who are more well-known have required far less citation requests. This is NOT some scientific article we are editing here. It is important to look at other entertainers' bio pages and how their film/theatrical/music videos/pageant/misc achievements are listed. Most are very comprehensive in their listing, i.e. detailing their first movie even if it were a very small role. I cannot but help feel that the Andrews article became a vicious battleground for no reason other than personal dislike of me for whatever reason. I don't even really know why since I had never met those 3 authors prior and I'd been the main author for the Andrews article in that I'd written most of the content there and even have tried to substantiate by verifying with real life people who knew Andrews' career VERY well if what was listed are vicious lies or facts. My motivations for the Andrews article is simple. I respected her and her work tremendously as I know her and know friends of hers. I have tried to substantiate information with as much citation and sources that I can find and have even tried to follow as much as I can of Wikipedia's methods and standards for citation. I have collaborated on many articles with other authors and never once have I ever encountered the animosity I have experienced with these 3 authors (Qworty, Coffeepusher, Little green rosetta). I had even suggested that if there's any information that we can't completely find the source for but we know is factual info that we can tag it as requiring citation and there is no need to delete the information which makes the article very thin and weak. There was even one edit that one of them did where they completely erased/deleted ALL of Andrews' pageant title listings. That was absolutely ludicrous because EVERYONE who knew of Andrews' career knew she EARNED those titles and these titles can be verified to their sources easily and I had even added the source citation for them (a printed book, official pageant Web site's historical section, etc.) That kind of destruction of information was so harmful to the Andrews' article and to Wikipedia at large. When I tried to restore it, they started threatening me saying I was engaging in an edit war, etc. It's really unneeded to take it out on me by using the Andrews article like that. It is because I got very tired of being treated as such by them and because I cared about the Andrews article that I wrote in officially to request for mediation. The situation was getting out of hand and it obviously needed an intervention of another editor such as yourself. I was getting threats from them about banning me off Wikipedia just because I refused to take their crap and spoke up against them and gave them a piece of my mind. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and have never destroyed, never hurt, never vandalized any article. I did not need for my integrity to be questioned by such people who have done nothing to really help the Andrews article beyond using it as a battleground for their egos. Please let me know how you can help author/edit. I'd be happy to help you in any way. I'd be happy to discuss if whatever information should or shouldn't be included and we can collaborate to make the Andrews article to be substantial. I also do not want for my comments here to you Howicus be grounds for yet more nasty remarks from those 3 authors on my talk page or anywhere. Lightspeedx (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
While not every source is bad, many of them are linked to Wikipedia pages and IMDB and they are not reliable. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source or use references that cite Wikipedia. And draghistory.webs.com sounds like a personal site. Same goes for using a Youtube video as a reference, its largely viewed as unreliable. Calling other editors vandals because of it is also not good. You need sources to newspapers, magazines, the TV show itself, anything that meets the definition of reliable source, as outlined at WP:RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try to look through the sources in this diff [24]. Lightspeedx, let me know if there are any other sources you wanted to add that aren't in this revision. Howicus (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the above diff Alright then, I've looked over the sources in that diff, and frankly, a lot of them don't meet the WP:RS guidelines.

  • Source 22 is no good, it only links to Won't Go Home Without You, which doesn't mention Andrews
  • 26 doesn't mention Andrews at all, and neither does the episode blurb here [25].
  • 27 only links to Maury's front page [26]
  • 28 does mention Andrews, [27], but IMDB is user-submitted, so it's not a reliable source. I'm thinking it might be possible to find a better source for this one, though.
  • 29 links to The Tyra Banks Show and a 404 error [28] on the Tyra Banks Show website.
  • 30 links to the Tyra Banks Show website, but it doesn't mention Andrews [29]
  • I have no issue with the "Stage Productions" table, as all of the sources there are used elsewhere in the article, and seem reliable,
  • I'm still not sure what to think about sources 31 [30] and 32 [31], but neither seems exceptionally reliable.
  • 33 only gives a picture and a caption, with no evidence to back up the claim [32]
  • 34, 35, 37, 38, and 42 all go back to the same site, and if you look at the home page here [33], you'll see that all that's required to get info added to the site is to email the person who owns it.
  • 36 looks like a blog, but it's kinda hard to tell [34]
  • 39 is unreliable, since the site is trying to sell pageant DVDs [35]
  • 40 and 41 are YouTube videos, which are never acceptable as sources.

Well, that's it, and there aren't very many reliable sources in there, I'm afraid. Howicus (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but a lengthy caveat: Not every reference has to be from a major newspaper or something. A Youtube Video can be a reliable source provided the publisher is a confirmed channel and has made public a documentary or a interview piece only viewable by said reliable source. All of these fall under the Epic Rap Battles of History page, which uses self published and youtube videos because they are a reliable source for certain contexts... like when the video was released and staff opinions. As a whole, they are in the minority, but identifying what material is reliable is appropriate based on context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as a comment, I would like to point out that this feedback is the exact same feedback Lightspeedx/Braveyoda is disputing and has already been discussed on Talk:Erica Andrews, Wikipedia talk:Varifiability page, and the Wikipedia talk:Videos page.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
In light of this bad-faith attempt to force change by Lightspeedx, and the inaction in the following week, I propose that the editors other then Lightspeedx do as they wish with his sourcing and edits. Not much of value can be salvaged from policy reasons, but the record of the shows may be worth keeping an eye on or trying to find better sources. Unless this needs to be open for another reason, I will close this in 24 hours or so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Would we be able to keep this one open at least until User:Lightspeedx's block expires. I hold no ill will and am really hoping that he can come to terms with the sourcing requirements, but a closure while he is (justifiably) blocked would probably be viewed by him as an attempt to steamroll the process and may cause more problems. Now I will not object if you choose otherwise, I think you have more than enough reason to do so. Just my two cents.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with it either way. Right now, I need to go to bed before my brain shuts off. Howicus (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, it will be left open. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Observing

Right now I have not looked at every single source, but I would like to post here as observing/monitoring this matter due to an interest in learning more about good sourcing req. I do understand that BLP- higher standards is a good starting point, but this person is apparently deceased? I'd also like to see if it is possible to ever stick to the source guidelines,as they are posted in the strictest sense, without having something look like it is full of original research. What I mean by that is allowing info. that is most likely correct, but has insufficient-for-higher-standard-sourcing, like "myspace". Playbills sound like a perfectly good reference to me because that is licensed material from the way that I understand it, and many playbills carry a union mark as well which give them even more credibility imo.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(uninvolved) I just want to point out that recently deceased persons are covered under BLP. Andrews died only two months ago. CarrieVS (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to 'allowing info. that is most likely correct, but has insufficient-for-higher-standard-sourcing, like myspace', the answer is "no". We are not journalists, who legitimately use primary sources, instead we are writing an encylopedia, and we should be using high quality secondary sources. In other words, articles, especially biographies of living persons, should use high quality secondary sources, and not rely on myspace. PhilKnight (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_70&oldid=1141925285"