Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 53#LGBT rights dispute resolution

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Cwmacdougall|23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Conduct, not content, dispute. This noticeboard is not for conduct disputes. Consider WP:SPI, WP:RFC/U, WP:EW, or WP:SPI, as and if appropriate. If you have disputes over specific content edits, please feel free to relist here, being specific and limiting your content to edits, not editors. — TransporterMan (TALK) 03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|White Terror (Russia)}}

Users involved

• {{User|‎InformedContent}}
• {{User| Cwmacdougall}}
• {{User| EverlastingGaze}}
• {{User| 75.51.167.249}} (same as EverlastingGaze?)
• {{User| ‎Darkness Shines}} (same as EverlastingGaze?)

Dispute overview

EverlastingGaze under at least two identities is trying to write crude Bolshevik propaganda and refuses even the most modest amendments to "his" precious article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I appealed three times to the NPOV page and several times on the Russia Group Talk page, to no effect.

How do you think we can help?

EverlastingGaze needs to be told firmly that he does not own the White Terror article and to edit from a NPOV and to accept incremental improvements to the page. Alternatively, best to delete all and start fresh.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|HrZ|09:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Consensus almost done, discussion will be held on talk page. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Deftones}}

Users involved

• {{User|HrZ}}
• {{User| Trascendence}}
• {{User| Fezmar9}}
• {{User| WesleyDodds}}

Dispute overview

Trascendence removed nu metal from the article claiming consensus without one existing. Discussions began on the talk page where myself, Fezmar9 and WesleyDodds agreed that it should be included due to the published sources already included in the article in support. Trascendence provided some sources, 7 against, while I found 22 sources in favour. When the discussion went stale (Trascendence hadn't edited the article in 17-18 days) I restored the genre. However, he has since reverted the changes and started another discussion, claiming they go against policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Helping to put to bed a topic that has been done to death. Consensus is clearly in favour with evidence provided. Trascendence has also been involved in a number of genre-only topics regarding Deftones. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones/Archive_5] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones/Archive_3]

This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved, it lasted two weeks, one week ago Hrz brought sources that aparently supported nu metal, but he stated that he haven't read all of them, and that when he did so, we will weight the sources to see who has the final word.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones/Archive_5] However he didn't weighted the sources as himself said, neither discussed it further, he just came and added nu metal again, because i have many verifiable sources that refute the idea of the band playing that genre I removed it again. That's the reason of the actual discussion. Anyway, I already balanced the sources, with the result being against nu metal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones/Archive 6#Nu_metal_again] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trascendence (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we've been far too civil, lenient and patient with Trascendence. Genre debates with this user go as far back as April 2012[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones/Archive_2#Post-metal] and continue today. We have plainly and clearly explained why his edits are against various policies for the last six months. His opinions about what Deftones' genre is boarders on a fringe theory—no mainstream publications or articles agree with his claims, only minor opinion pieces. While I personally hear a lot of other genres in their music, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming and widely held belief that Deftones is a nu-metal band. There is a clear consensus among editors of Deftones who understand wiki policy and guidelines that it makes sense for nu-metal to be listed in the infobox. The real heart of the issue here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I came into the talk page genre debates that have been occurring on Deftones [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deftones&diff=505888178&oldid=505753045 kind of sideways]. I have barely edited the article and have no vested interest in what the band is referred to as (also, in my opinion debating over what goes into the infobox is small fry, for the infobox is intended to be a summary of the article's contents anyway). In this debate and the previous one about post-metal, one of my main goals has be to try to guide everyone to means of finding suitable sources to back up their viewpoints. I have tried my best to deal with everyone in good faith, but I feel it's become more and more apparent that Transcendence is primarily focused on pushing and enforcing his point of view on the article, even if no one else agrees with him (which no one has). Furthermore, he has misrepresented sources he provides to back up his viewpoint (my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deftones&diff=519897281&oldid=519510662 most recent post] on the talk page addresses this), he brushes aside our comments about the quality of those sources he provides and focuses instead on the overall number (which under scrutiny becomes a smaller number), wrongly invokes WP:CON in what appear to me to be attempts to game the system, and with the statement above where he says "This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved" he's either grossly misunderstanding what occurred or outright lying, as I never agreed with him, and in fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deftones&diff=514605285&oldid=514589789 pointed that out to him] on the talk page already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Saluts and welcome to DRN. As far as I see, the main issue here is the addition/removal of the "nu metal" music genre from the Deftones article. Also, I see some civility comments over Trascendence. We will be solving the first issue here by now. From what I read above, seems like Trascendence understood (?) that he was uncorrectly adding the genre and now he removed it. I checked the article and this seems to be solved. Is this solved by now? Or there is any other action or issue to be analyzed? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I believe this is resolved, because no one of the editors involved have replied in the talk page or here. Althought something like this happened the last time: two weeks quiet and without any problem, but then the same issue pops up again, althought this one seems to be more definitive than the previous discussions. Trascendence (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::The issue is not resolved. The consensus and preponderance of evidence is in favor of including nu-metal in the infobox. Trascendence is under the opinion that it's widely believed that Deftones don't play nu-metal, and that because no one noticed that he previously removed nu-metal, that we were all clearly in favor of its removal. Neither of these statements are true. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• The references were weighted two days ago, the result favors the deletion of nu metal from ythe infobox [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deftones], all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal and I even gave advise in the talk page, also, looks like you just forgot (again) what consensus is. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

::The issue is still not resolved. Since the last reply on the article talk page, it has been shown that there are more sources in favour of the genre. Trascendence is prone to making assumptions as well about editors ("all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal," "i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved") when he has been told otherwise. It has also been pointed out to him that WP:SILENT is not a policy or guideline, yet he invokes it much the same. The only resolution he has spoke of is waiting for their new album to come out and, ergo, more sources (through reviews) but that doesn't comply with WP:CRYSTAL. HrZ (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I already replied in the talk page. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, I'm going to refrain from further discussion on the article talk page and instead comment here until this matter is settled, as I don't see us resolving the deadlock without the aid of a third party. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

:I agree, this is probably the best way forward. HrZ (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've added more sources to support my statement in the talk page, however, very probably i won't be online tomorrow, (I'm saying this because i don't want my abscence to be confused with some kind of consensus). Trascendence (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

:*I wouldn't have made such an assumption anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out to any dispute resolution volunteers who wade into this debate that I take issue with Trascendence's attempt to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deftones&diff=520223217&oldid=520221089 shut down discussion in his favor] while this dispute resolution is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, sorry for the delay guys. I was kind of busy but I am back here. So, as far as i can read again, seems like consensus has not been reached whether to add or remove nu-metal. Now, how did you weight the sources and how did you reached the assumption that it was indeed in favour of removal? I will take a look at all the discussions again to illustrate myself more into the context; while I am at it, I beg you all to please answer these brief questions i left- Thanks- — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• :Okay again. I think i got it: Merely mentioning "nu-metal" in the infobox is, in my opinion, either pointless and useless. They have been categorized as nu-metal in the past and several good sources destroy this claims with good rationales and musical and historical studies, comparing the band's work with other famous rock groups like Korn or Limp Lizkit. I would recommend the avoidance of the addition of the nu-metal genre in the infobox and heavily expand on this information in the respective section. It would make a very interesting read to know how the band was first "miscatalogued" as nu-metal and then several sources discussed the accuracy and debatability of this. — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• ::Thanks for the feedback. My general impression of the sources is that most of them who don't outright say Deftones are a nu metal band either say they are an unconventional nu metal band ([http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/30/entertainment/ca-61289 1], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KPOsu8JOHO8C&lpg=PA17&ots=Cr__kHxle8&dq=Deftones%20Nu%20Metal&pg=PA83#v=onepage&q=Deftones%20Nu%20Metal&f=false 2], [http://www.moderndrummer.com/site/2010/06/abe-cunningham-3/#.UJbq1mfZ3Sh 3]) or moved away from the genre ([http://www.rocksound.tv/features/article/deftones-how-white-pony-almost-killed-us 1], [http://thequietus.com/articles/05329-deftones-chino-interview-favourite-records 2], [http://www.metropulse.com/news/2010/sep/01/deftones-survive-nu-metal-era-integrity-intact/ 3]). I need to reexamine the sources, but as I recall only one source ([http://www.themarshalltown.com/zine/2011/10/09/you-need-to-read-this-because-your-taste-in-music-is-probably-shit-deftones/ 1]) claims they were "miscatalogued". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::Well, i was just giving a general comment and "miscatalogued" is OR from me :P. What i tried to say is that it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• ::::I agree that such a thing belongs in the prose, but given how so many sources discuss the band as nu metal (indeed, one of the genre's more noteworthy bands) wouldn't that be a good reason to list the genre in the infobox? I'm not pushing the point; I'm curious as to what your honest assessment is considering the sources provided. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::::I consider that this is a delicate issue. Naming a band to belong to an specific genre of music is not easy. Also, this is not a matter of how much sources are there; it is how much sources there discuss the topic. In my personal view, I see [from several aleatory sources] that they were catalogued as nu-metal in the beginning, but then moved into other genres while they were developing their music. You may have two options: adding the genre on the infobox [because they have released works considered inside the scope of the music genre] or leave it out and cover it on the appropiate section using prose. I ave no personal choice, but I can develop more solutions :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu metal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" i consider the idea of ΛΧΣ (the idea of explaining how they were miscatalogued and then moving away from the labe) as a good alternative, i can write that down this week if we reach a consensus. Trascendence (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• ::ΛΧΣ and the other involved editors, do you agree that "There far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu mtal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" based on the information provided? I don't, but I'm open to having my mind changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::Can't say I agree, but I will look at the sources again. "it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such" - I could be wrong (feel free to point out if I am) but something like this was suggested before in previous discussions. As WesleyDodds pointed out, they were one of the more noteworthy bands of the genre and would like to know what ΛΧΣ thinks. HrZ (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• ::::Actually, I am not an involved editor but the volunteer giving a had to solve this heated issue :). As I said some lines above, it "is not a matter of how much sources are there; it is how much sources there discuss the topic" which truly matters. Also, I can add: "what will/would be better for the article? Just listing the genre on the infobox? or expanding the genre coverage and such as prose? or both?" — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::::My answer to "what will/would be better for the article? Just listing the genre on the infobox? or expanding the genre coverage and such as prose? or both?" would be "Both". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• ::::::Well, another option would be, if [when consensus between] all of you agree to add it to the infobox, you could put something like this: "genre 1, genre 2, nu-metal^[a]" and add a note with something like this: "The band has been considered a nu-metal band by several sources throughout their career,^[1][2] although such status has been heavily disputed in recent years.^[3][4] For a detailed overview about the band's genre designation, read the appropiate section above." It may also work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::::::I would really hate to tell a reader that there's a conflict or dispute about nu-metal when one might not truly exist. Per WP:WEIGHT, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)." Before this DRN, Trascendence's evidence that there is a large following of people who disagree with Deftones' labeling of nu-metal was poorly supported and seemed to be largely his personal opinion. After opening the DRN, he has since flooded the talk page with new links supposedly supporting his opinion. I've been very busy lately and haven't had time to check all of these new sources, but the two I randomly selected from this list weren't terribly convincing. I'll check out the others this weekend. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I believe to remove it from the infobox and give it a mention in the body of the article is the way to go. Trascendence (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Deathlibrarian|21:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Prior discussion is not extensive, only a day old. xanchester (t) 03:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Guy Fawkes#Addition_of_V_for_Vendetta_Reference}}

Users involved

• {{User|Deathlibrarian}}
• {{User| Malleus Fatuorum}}
• {{User| Parrot of Doom}}

Dispute overview

I inserted a reference to the movie V for Vendetta on the Guy Fawkes page.

This was quickly removed.

I then started a section on the Talk page, and asked that people discuss the matter there, rather than remove the reference. However, an edit war resulted, with little discussion of the matter on the relevant section on the talk page.

This resulted in me getting a ban, so as per wikipedia guidelines, and to avoid further edit warring, I have opened this WP:DR

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As mentioned, tried to get some discussion with Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom on the relevant section on the talk page, with little luck. I have posted in two other editors talk pages who I have seen have been involved in the discussion previously, asking them for comment. I've also looked at the history of the discussion int he archives.

How do you think we can help?

I think anything that could get some mediation and talk happening between the editors involved, and to get some discussion happening rather than just a constant edit war.

Thanks for your help.

There has been an extensive discussion of the comic/film in the archive, and you may try to understand that the writers of the article are tired of discussing old business.

In similar cases, editors of featured articles are more likely to respond if you seem to have read the archives and make a new argument for including a discussion of the comic/film. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue here (which is poorly explained in the previous discussions) is that Wikipedia isn't in the business of literary value judgements. The Gunpowder Plot is one of the formative events in English history; and thus by extension world history—17th-century England as a Roman Catholic Spanish puppet-state would have meant no United States, no British Empire, and probably no Treaty of Westphalia and thus no concept of "nation" as distinct from "realm". Because of this, it's very widely embedded in English and English-speaking culture, of which V for Vendetta is a relatively insignificant part. Because it's not down to Wikipedia to decide which literary works are relevant to readers, an in-popular-culture section needs either to include the whole of Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, or none of it. (The festival of Guy Fawkes Night is an exceptional case, as that's a 400-year-old widely celebrated festival which largely shapes modern perceptions of Fawkes.) In cases like Daniel Lambert where the popular-culture element is small enough to be manageable this is practical, but incorporating every significant cultural depiction of Fawkes would swamp the article, while incorporating V4V without giving equal weight to Guy Fawkes (novel) or Equivocation (play) is a value-judgment of the type that's inappropriate on a project that tries to be neutral. By (re)adding the section the coverage is tilted away from WP:NPOV, and thus however good-intentioned can reasonably be construed as disruption. – iridescent 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:Although I was going to voice my support of a VFV inclusion, Iridescent is entirely correct, and I support the above statement entirely.--ɱ 01:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the case is such as above, and we could be looking at a situation where the play and the novel are not included, while V for Vendetta is, why not include *the main items* in a section on "Guy Fawkes in popular culture"?. The spirit of Wikipedia is to include all viewpoints, so people can make up their own minds, not too exclude them because they may offend...and I think this extends to cultural works that reflect on the nature of a person.

IMDB lists 11 productions that feature Guy Fawkes....but clearly they aren't all major productions, don't all have the same cultural significance, and all 11 don't need to be listed. Same with the novel and the play.

The reality is - people will continue to come to this page and add V for Vendetta to it, expecting it to be there - as I did.

It's a natural inclusion (as is also the novel and the play...but V for Vendetta is probably more well known because of its recency). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

:Wikipedia does not encourage including all viewpoints. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#"Giving equal validity" discuss this extensively. Viewpoints must be given due weight, in proportion to the significance of each viewpoint. As a recent meme, highlighting it may unduly emphasise recent events, without considering the overall historical view of the subject.--xanchester (t) 02:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This case should be closed; the prior discussion is only a day old and is not extensive. Although consensus can change, the argument has been not to include the popular culture reference because of due weight. Guy Fawkes is a significant historical figure. V for Vendetta, the comic book that spawned the Hollywood movie that spawned the internet meme, is only indirectly related to the actual historical figure, and is already adequately covered in the Guy Fawkes in popular culture article. Highlighting it in the main Guy Fawkes article gives the popular culture reference too much weight over other cultural depictions of the subject. I hope that helps.--xanchester (t) 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|67.87.242.210|05:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Discussion has stalemated and is going in circles. Only one party is participating. Suggest that parties initiate an WP:RFC to get more input. Noleander (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|East Coast of the United States}}
• {{pagelinks| User talk:Hoppingalong}}

Users involved

• {{User|Hoppingalong}}
• {{User| ɱ}}

Dispute overview

User Hoppingalong seems to think that every clause and every sentence needs an inline citation. This can be shown with the current (11:47PM EST) version of the East Coast article, every sentence under the introduction has an inline citation, as that's all that Hoppingalong will accept. He will delete any information without a citation, and will support IP vandals who delete entire sections of information without any stated reason. This statement can be supported by looking at the revision history of the East Coast article.

Meanwhile, I am trying to bring forward old information that has been deleted in 2009 and 2012 by IP users with no stated reason. Hoppingalong has blocked and undone my every move. I have undone deletions by the IP users, who stated no reasons, but I have not undone any of Hoppingalong's changes. He is repeatedly 'attacking' me and attempting to start an 'edit war', and I have tried, both politely and sternly to make him stop, yet I will not edit-war with him, I have not edit-warred with him, and that is why I request a resolution through this request form.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to talk to Hoppingalong. Although nothing was discussed on the article's talk page, the discussion took place on Hoppingalong's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Does every single clause in a Wikipedia article need an inline citation? I think not, Hoppingalong thinks contrary. Tell me and him what the real answer is.

I am not sure this is the place to initially discuss what should be included in an article when the requesting editor has not discussed anything on the article's talk page. So anyways... In the recent series of edits I have removed only information inserted by ɱ that was of no value ("international airports are located in states all along the coast") or that lacked any indication it is a fact worthy of inclusion in the article, and possibly POV ("Republic Airlines, Air Wisconsin, and American Eagle Airlines are some of the several regional airlines with flights across the East Coast.") and that was unsourced to boot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Coast_of_the_United_States&diff=521152804&oldid=521145844] Earlier, another Wikipedian removed a random list of bodies of water that was included in the article. When ɱ reinserted it without explaining why it belonged (why not a list of forests, rivers, streets, etc in this article?), I reverted the reinsertion.

If ɱ is complaining that I have added Reliable Sources, that is true as can be. I have added 5 of the 6 there now, as well as several of the facts not before in the article. As for whether a "fact" needs a Reliable Source or citation, WP:V seems to cover that.

What "facts" does ɱ want to add, based on what Reliable Sources? If the facts are actually appropriate and relevant to the subject and Reliable Sources support them, they should be included. Reverting to a version of the page that was unsourced, dubious, random, and unencyclopedic should not happen, though.

Hoppingalong (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me refute all of what Hoppingalong is saying above. Firstly, this is the place to discuss, as the conflict was discussed in great depth on a talk page before coming here. As for Hoppingalong's reverting my edits, I do not believe that my information was valueless, and his example was really of value, as many countries are not plentiful in int'l airports. Take Turkmenistan, with its one int'l airport. Turkmenistan is a good deal larger than the U.S. State of California, a state that has 11 int'l airports. Costa Rica is twice the size of New Jersey, it has twice the landmass, yet their number of int'l airports is the same. Sudan and Chad are enormous (Chad bigger than Texas and Sudan 3x the size of Texas), yet together they have three int'l airports. Texas has a whopping 21 airports, and Sudan (3x the size), has a mere 2. So, no: my information is not valueless. To state that there are int'l airports all along the Coast is valuable, and so many regions are very scarce in int'l airports. I would have even listed all of the int'l airports if there were a couple, but the list is so large that I chose not to. That just goes to show how small the ratio is between landmass and # of int'l airports. Going on, Hoppingalong states that he removes things unworthy of inclusion. That is right out. You cannot remove AGF edits because you think they're unworthy. That's what the 'Talk' page is for. And as I stated before- 'unsourced to boot' is not something that allows removal of edits. Sorry, no. Then you state a WIkipedian removed a list, I'd like to object to the term 'Wikipedian', as I see an IP user blanking whole sections in this article as well as the List of U.S. state abbreviations as a reckless vandal. He is no Wikipedian. And I do not need to explain why something belongs after a vandal blanks entire sections, the procedure is to revert the vandalism and state it as reverting vandalism, which is what I did.

Your middle paragraph shows how much of an exhibitionist and strutter you are, and your sickeningly profound pompousness. And you state that WP:V covers reliable sources, and it does, it really does. It states that facts must be verifiable. Note that it does not say that facts must be verified. It does Not want people to verify their every sentence, it wants people to make sure that while writing, they should keep in mind that everything they write should be able to be backed up by a source.

What facts do I want to add? All that I have tried to add, all that you will simply delete with a click of a button, without a second thought, all that several IP users have vandalised over the years, no reason stated. I would like to point out that the current version of the article is the version that Hoppingalong is happy with right now, with inline cites after every clause or sentence under the intro, and no picture worthy enough for its inclusion, him citing relevance. For the sake of the record, the full unvandalised article currently lies at User:Ɱ/sandbox3, which did take good effort to reconstruct, effort that Hoppingalong's confounding morals will undo and twist up without a second thought to it. Please note that the sandbox page is not how I want the article to look, just that I want it closer to this, and with the majority of the information on it.

Comment from DRN volunteer - Hi. Thanks for coming to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) with this dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. The WP:Verifiability policy requires that all statements be supported by WP:Reliable sources. To quote from that policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". Therefore, if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided. In particular, see WP:CHALLENGE which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material.... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." WP does contain an interesting essay Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but that is just an essay and carries little weight when resolving issues. For those editors that are reluctant to provide citations for "obvious" facts (such as that highway 95 runs up the East Coast) bear in mind that non-US readers may benefit from citations because they serve as a list of avenues for further research. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

:PS: Regarding the prior talk page discussion: The only talk page discussion so far is a small discussion on an editor's talk page, but that won't be noticed by editors that watch the East Coast article. I suggest that the parties read the WP:Verifiability policy very carefully, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. In that discussion, they should apply that policy to the material (transportation, history, etc) that is the subject of this dispute. If the discussion reaches a stalemate after a few days, then start a new DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Response to uninvolved editor/DRN volunteer - Thank you for a response. I have to say that your sentence regarding WP:V is either misworded or wrong. WP:V states that any statement challenged or likely needs a cite, not that all statements need a cite. I also have a problem with this- "if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided." If a user challenges every little detail in an entire article, then a cite is needed for every little detail or else it all deserves to be wiped out??? I'm fine with citing some things in an article, I think that's very good, but an article is not supposed to look like what that East Coast article looks like right now. A cite after every sentence??? That isn't necessary, yet Hoppingalong thinks it is and will delete anything that doesn't have one. Go look at the article and the cites after every sentence in the body 'paragraphs' and really tell me that's how an article should be. Go, look at it, really. I'll even link it- East Coast of the United States. With regards to the post scriptum, why start a new discussion when the only involved editors cannot come to an agreement and are working at it here? And the discussion on the user talk page states both of our opinions, the involved editors of the article. So now there is a stalemate, and now there is a brand new DRN case right here.--ɱ 21:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

::Most facts do need to have a Reliable Source referenced. If you look at starred/featured articles, the lead section are often not referenced. That is because they are only summarizing the more detailed stuff that is actually referenced in the same article in the body sections of the article. The same goes for the Information Boxes. If the data is referenced in the article itself, the data repeated for convenience in the Box would not necessarily need to be; though it would not necessarily be a bad thing, either. FWIW, ɱ, I have only reverted your additions three times ever at this article. Each was different material you had reinserted that another wikipedian had deleted or was some new stuff you added. I reverted each time for slightly different reasons, mostly because the "facts" or list of links did not belong even if you had referenced them. Each also failed to pass WP:V, but that was only part of it. If you dislike WP:V, I am not your problem and this is the wrong place to give a complaint. This is not really a WP:V interpretation dispute anyway, though. Rather than overgeneralize and setup false arguments that I never made, you should go to the article talk page to explain why unreferenced drivel like "International airports are located in states all along the coast" belongs in the article. A hearty thank you to Noleander for helping; ɱ, let us move on and not waste Noleander's time. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

:::This is directed primarily towards Hoppingalong - Now let's not run off here prematurely; this issue is part of a larger problem, and I'll be so bold as to say that it is meaning that either Hoppingalong or I have absolutely no idea how to edit Wikipedia. Noleander and other third opinions can tell you and I our wrongs in the editing of the East Coast article, as neither of us can apparently listen to each other.

:::Three times reverted is three times too many. I was startled at one, as very, very few ever revert my edits, possibly because I try to make as beneficial ones as I can. Those three I consider beneficial. Regarding your statement about the intro section- yes, inline cites aren't as necessary as it's a summary. Yet info in a body section does not need an inline cite. WP:V and other policies & essays tell you that. And sure, you had your own reasons for reverting, but apparently nothing will get through your filters except cited material, and that's just not right. I urge you, read other articles. The body paragraphs don't have inline cites at the end of every sentence. Look at related articles and those too will not. US geographic articles need not have cites at the end of every sentence. Look at Texas, the Appalachians, or others, really, go look, I urge you. Not every sentence in a body para needs an inline cite. Your judgement of how my edits pass or fail WP:V is completely wrong. I do not dislike the policy, but you do not understand it, you see it in a wrong way, one that you are trying to impose upon others, including me, and apparently people in Northeastern United States. And you're wrong, this completely is a WP:V interpretation dispute. I know that the policy allows body paragraphs to not need inline cites after each sentence, yet you interpret WP:V to mean that every body paragraph does need inline cites at the end of each sentence. Also, please tell me how I overgeneralise or setup false arguments- you are accusing me of things I will not do. In addition, I would appreciate a more drawn-out third opinion that touches on all aspects of this discussion, and I feel that it will benefit me as well as Hoppingalong regardless of the end result.--ɱ 00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::::The goal is for every sentence in WP to have an inline citation. Now, in order to get the encyclopedia going, that aspiration is not enforced unless an editor asks for citations. WP contains hundreds of thousands of sentences without citations. That simply means that no editors have yet challenged those sentences. But the WP:BURDEN policy makes it clear that once another editor asks for a citation, the editor who wants to include the material must provide a citation. There is no negotiating. The challenging editor does not have to provide a justification. These are very strong, very basic rules of WP (the only significant exception is for the Lead/Intro section: it can omit inline citations provided that the facts are cited later in the article). No amount of discussion in this DRN case is going to change that rule. My advice to user ɱ is to crack open some hardcopy reference works and start finding citations for the East Coast history material ... that is the best path forward. --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::Actually, the goal is not to have every sentence with an online quote, for this is a recipe for an unreadable pedantic-appearing article. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia , not a scholarly treatise. For most topics where all the information from a paragraph is from the same obviously reliable source, a single citation is sufficient. (And it need not be inline--we have lately fallen into the habit of using footnote numbers, but other methods of citation (such as the "Harvard" system of parenthetical references followed by a reference list) have always been equally acceptable here and elsewhere--what is meant, is that in some cases they have to be specific to the particular fact. If, for example, someone went to a particular high school and then a college, and the information is from the same reliable biography, it does not need two footnotes.

:::::Any fact challenged or likely to be challenged means any fact reasonably challenged ... ; the word "reasonably" is implied in every WP policy and guideline and practice, on the basis of not being hung up about technicalities (otherwise known as IAR). It is a well-known practice here of people out to destroy an article to ask unreasonably for citations and when they are given, complain they are insufficiently specific, and so gradually remove every sentence until there is nothing left to show notability & the article gets deleted.(There can be many reasons why people might want to do this, the common ones are pure cussedness, prejudice, & the desire that WP not cover a particular topic in detail.) But as Noleander says, normally when there is even a somewhat unreasonable challenge, it is easier to find a reference than argue the matter. When it is really unreasonable, though, I think it is better to consider it as a misinterpretation & to do only what is reasonable. If unreasonable challenges are accepted, the rules tend to drift, & I think that's what we're seeing here.

:::::In the specific case raised here of geography, standard maps are a RS, and a single highway map or travel guide can show the entire position of a highway. Just cite the Times atlas, or something of the sort. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::Hoppingalong, I'd like to kindly ask that you respond to the above two comments. Thank you.

::::::Thank you both for your replies. Though in this case, Hoppingalong had challenged every piece of uncited information in the article, and personally removed it. To that, The Transhumanist has said "I visited WP:VER a few years ago to ask what would happen if an editor went around challenging everything on Wikipedia that wasn't cited regardless of how obvious it was, and it was pointed out to me that the person would likely be blocked for being disruptive or trying to make a point." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_78]. And this truthfully is close to the current case, the difference being that Hoppingalong has only challenged everything at a couple of articles and not the four plus million on the English wiki.--Hoppingalongɱ 07:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::DGG points out that there are different ways to cite. True enough. And if a particular reference covers several sentences, even a paragrpah, great. There is more than one way to pass WP:V, but we should not disregard WP:V. I do not read DGG to say that particular facts do not need to be referenced in some way, though. I still do not know what we are arguing about, though. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Coast_of_the_United_States&diff=521152804&oldid=521145844 ɱ's edits had more wrong with them] than just not passing WP:V. This abstract argument is fun, but I do not think we are advancing anything. Hoppingalong (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I'm glad that he convinced you that there are different ways to reference information. Nobody here is disregarding WP:V, just the fact is that not every sentence has to have a reference, and WP:V supports that. We are discussing referencing text in articles, something which you had deemed necessary at all times as inline cites, and now have weakened to deem that referencing text in articles is necessary but can be done in several fashions. In regards to your last statement, we might all accomplish more if you were taking this an ounce more seriously.--ɱ 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::DGG must be editing a different WP than I edit :-) Whenever someone asks for a citation in my WP: there is only one answer: "Okay, I'll go find one". WP:BURDEN is a policy, not a suggestion or guideline. He is correct to point out that if several consecutive sentences share a single cite, the cite can appear at the end of that group of sentences, of course. Returning to this specific DRN case: I think everyone agrees that cites are needed for geographical or historical facts, so it is time to wind-up this DRN case, and have editors go find some source books/maps/etc. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent|11}}

I agree with both Noleander and DGG, but would add this refinement. While objections to the lack of sourcing should be reasonable, at the same time we have an obligation to assume good faith and presume that such objections are rooted in a reasonable objection if no reason is stated or if the stated reason is vague or uncertain for some other reason. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: I would like all parties to take a breath for a moment and contemplate what the edit warring is doing to the article. Please take a moment to look at the article in it's present state, and compare that with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Coast_of_the_United_States&oldid=520645211 older version] of the article. I am sure that everyone has the best intentions, but clearly damage is being done. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:I agree that the content has gone down dramatically and the article is suffering for that. But no edit warring has taken place. Vandals deleted information, users reverted vandal edits, Hoppingalong deleted my edits and others' edits, so he has 'warred' so to speak, yet I have not, as I haven't deleted anyone's contributions. In addition, I am preserving the page in a workspace, with the link posted above. Paragraphs and paragraphs of useful information were lost for years that I took a great deal of time searching for and recovering. We shouldn't have to rewrite the article when we can just re-cite. And if you consider an edit war to take place between two or more people as I do, then it's safe to say that no edit wars have taken place here. So to the involved editors, please listen to the above comment, as it's truthful and a reason why the article should be restored to what is on the sandbox/workpage space, or a similar version. The removals were all because of vandals or because of Hoppingalong being the cop, judge, juror, and executioner by challenging, citing problems, ignoring the article's talk page (discussion is standard procedure in a challenge), and then deleting the information, and all in one big swoop. Yet several of the editors in this discussion seem to at least partially if not fully back Hoppingalong, the person who feels he has right over the article and is so unbridled so as to feel he has the right to arrest, convict, sentence, and execute without any proper proceedings.--ɱ 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::SueRangell and DGG are correct: WP:BURDEN should not be used to maliciously destroy valid information. So I thought I'd spend a minute doing what I was asking others to do: add some cites to the article. So I grabbed my atlas and road maps, and jumped in, and right off the bat I was flummoxed. The article is called "East Coast" ... but does that mean the shoreline? Or the dozen states that are on the shoreline? Is Atlanta (250 miles from the shore) in the "East Coast" or not? Is "East Coast" a political designation (a list of states or counties used for census & statistics)? or a geological term? or an oceanographic term? or is it a cultural term ("East coast style", etc)? Obviously, "East Coast" is all of these. But that just reinforces the need for sourcing: what exactly do geologists mean when they say "east coast"? If the US Census Bureau uses the term, do they include Atlanta? Pittsburgh? If a DJ mentions "East Coast rap music" are they including Florida? Non-US residents will be reading this article, and we need to give them hard facts based on sources, not what we, as individuals think the term means. Lots of good information could go into the article ... but starting with sources that define the term is the best path forward. --Noleander (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - After looking at the current version of the page and the version linked above by SueRangell I would agree that WP:BURDEN has been, perhaps, harshly applied here. I see no reason why the original information cannot be left in with cite tags. In my opinion, this assumes good faith that they will be cited. This has the added bonus of allowing uninvolved editors to come along and cite the content without having to write the article themselves. After they have been uncited and tagged for a reasonable amount of time they can be removed. Both editors in this dispute clearly have differing views regarding sourced material so I think my previous proposal would be a fair compromise. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:Adding back in uncited material for physical features on the coastline (bays, etc) is fine. And maybe even listing cities that are on the coast (NY, Miami, etc). But adding inland cities (like Atlanta or Richmond or Columbia or Orlando) is where WP:OR may get violated unless there is a source. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::Just a though, as a non-US citizen, I always assumed East Coast was more of an area thing (i.e. that whole side of the states) rather than specifically a coastal thing. Perhaps this should be defined before including or omitting certain cities. As it stands, I would still go for reinstating the majority of the content and then having ones that are disputed tagged to be cited (i.e. Atlanta). If they are within, say, two weeks, great! If not, remove them comfortable in the knowledge that those that do believe they should be included had the chance to find citations but either couldn't or didn't bother. I think it's the best solution to this dispute. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::That distinction between "coast only" and "area thing" is precisely my point. The sources use the term "east coast" in dozens of different ways. For editors to pick a single definition/usage and put it in the article is WP:OR. For instance: Buffalo, New York is in the coastal state of NY, but it is inland and is actually on the shore of Lake Erie, not the Atlantic ocean ... so is Buffalo in the "East Coast" or not? As for the "two week" try out, that sounds good: WP:BURDEN says that the polite thing to do is ask for cites and wait a bit before removing material. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::::I would suggest then it may be worthwhile raising that concern at a relevant wikiproject to allow discussion to determine some sort of consensus in the matter. Regardless of WP:OR I'd invoke WP:IAR and leave at least some kind of definition in now or at least a clarification of possible definitions to avoid confusion which detriments the article. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::That sounds good. It seems that there are several significant definitions that should be included: political/states; statistics/demographics/census; culture/style/music; geographic/geophysical; and oceanographic/littoral. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::I agree with all of this, it's good thinking, but two weeks might be a bit short of time. For a major article like Elvis Presley, there are more involved editors, more watchers, and more readers, so it'll be edited faster; but for this small article I'd say give it a good amount longer of time.--ɱ 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::Note that some improvements have been made to the article in the past few days: adding citations, creating a section outline, etc. So editors should not revert the article to a prior version. If there is some material from an older version that seems valid & likely to be sourced, it should be copied into the current version. --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}Great, it looks like at least one party is happy with this compromise. If Hoppingalong is also willing to abide by this agreement perhaps we can end this dispute amicably to the benefit of the article Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:It looks like we have a resolution, so I'll close this DRN case in the next day or two. If anyone wants to keep the case open, please provide a clear statement of the remaining open issue(s). Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

::Are we still going ahead with the 'put information back & have 2 weeks to cite it else it's removed' plan? Hoppingalong himself never had anything to say about this plan, and I asked for a larger deadline than two weeks. And Noleander, both you and Cabe6403 said that BURDEN was being applied maliciously or too harshly. Neither openly told Hoppingalong to stop applying it in this fashion, and therefore he is still doing it, thinking that he can and should. He's not only removing (in your words) valid information, but he is using it in content disputes to remove information (and whole chunks of it too) without settling the content dispute at all on the article talk. Now we've fixed all of that, but he still stands by all of his actions as completely proper. I tend to disagree and hope you do too.--ɱ 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:::I think a week or two is plenty of time. If you are planning on taking a month to find citations, that is too long. If it will take you a month or more to find citations, you should do the research, then add the material after you are finished. It is not reasonable to ask other editors to wait for months. The WP:BURDEN policy says that the burden is on the editor asking to add the material, not the editor asking for cites. You are suggesting turning WP:BURDEN upside down. Let me ask you this: Why will it take you more than 2 weeks to find citations for the list of cities or the major roads on the East Coast? --Noleander (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

::::I'm okay with 2 weeks, just a bit more time would be more comfortable. I can't speak for other editors, but I wouldn't be able to do it alone in that allotted time, as I've been very busy lately. I haven't yet put nearly as much work into the East Coast article as I would've liked. That's why I think it will take 'me' more than 2 weeks. I'm slow. :) --ɱ 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::Yet I'd rather like you to address my other points - i.e. the Hoppingalong's continuing abuse of WP:V, which you and Cabe admitted to, and my first question, which was- are we still going along with this? And Hoppingalong has said nothing regarding the plan- if we are to enact that plan, we need (for lack of a better term) bipartisan support.--ɱ 20:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::You are spending too much time worrying about other editors. You need to focus on finding citations. I never said that any editors was "abusing" the Verifiability policy; to the contrary, the Verifiability policy (which includes WP:BURDEN) says that cites are required when challenged. Your historical and transportation material has been challenged. You can either put the material in today, and supply the citations next week; or find the citations and then put the material in. What you can't do is put the material in with the intention of taking a long time to supply the cites. My suggestion to you is to redirect your efforts away from the DRN discussion and instead spend your limited time finding citations. That is the best path forward. --Noleander (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}Focus away from the DRN discussion? This is the DRN discussion right here, and we're still in the midst of this. There are unresolved issues, let's please not try to gloss over them. And of course I focus on other editors. Hoppingalong is not only an active editor of the East Coast article so I need to be able to work with him, but Hoppingalong is (ab)using WP:V against me. That is why I am focusing on 'other editors'. Should I just not focus on other editors, ignore the fact that he is abusing policies to revert so many of my edits? And you're wrong about abuse of WP:V, you stated this: "SueRangell and DGG are correct: WP:BURDEN should not be used to maliciously destroy valid information." That was in context of what was being done, the malicious destroying of info in the article. And that was entirely being done by Hoppingalong. I don't know why you say "'long' time", I only requested a bit more time, that's really harmless. I will be adding information, but Hoppingalong needs to agree with this 2-week plan and perhaps participate, because if I were to jump at it right now, he would be reverting and reverting till the cows come home, and you should know that. I certainly do.--ɱ 21:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:I looked in the article history, and the only reverts are those involving uncited material, some of which is not "obviously" true material. Are there any reversions of material with valid footnotes? As for the other party: parties are not required to participate in DRN. It is an entirely voluntary process. Any resolutions achieved in DRN are non-binding. Furthermore, DRN decisions cannot override WP polices. A week has gone by since this issue arose: have you been able to find any citations yet? Regardless of how this DRN ends up, in the end, you'll still need to find reliable sources to support the text you want to add (such as ".... that is because after the change from using horse-powered machinery to instead using water power to power its earliest factories, the consequence was that industrialization was essentially limited to New England"). It looks like you have a lot of good ideas on how to contribute to the article, and I hope you have some luck finding sources. One tip you may find useful: online books found within Google Books are acceptable as sources: you may want to search there to find some citations. --Noleander (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

::Thank you for your considerations, but truthfully you very much aren't helping. As you admitted, Hoppingalong was maliciously using Burden to destroy valid information (in your own words), regardless of cites. As for asking the other party to agree with this compromise, sure one person files the dispute, but a dispute is a conflict. It has many parties. One army cannot fight a battle, you can't clap with one hand. You need two. So for this plan that was suggested, it is absolutely imperative that the other editor agrees with it. This is the compromise to end the DRN, as it gives Hoppinalong what he wants (i.e. the cites) and me what I want (i.e. the valid info). And sure, I'll need more cites. That's easy. And please don't tell me how to get them; I am very good with the WWW was well as libraries, and I am well accustomed to referencing via WayBack Machine. One may find that suggestion almost insulting. In summary - please notify Wikipedia user Hoppingalong to state whether he'll agree with the 2-week plan.--ɱ 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

:By the way, I don't care about the time limit anymore as you seem to have a very strong opinion against more time; but my observation while editing is that so many editors feel the need to be very restrictive and restraining, many Wikipedians are very closed in that regard when there is no need to be. For example, the debate on inclusion or exclusion of articles and info. There are probably thousands of request for deletions each month, and some are for good reasons, but if you want to restrict information like obscure people or events, etc.; as User:Kingturtle has said- "We have endless room to document all sorts of things." That's only one example. This strong grip is also held with the denial of increased time for this plan to undergo.--ɱ 04:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

::Please do not misrepresent what I said: I did not say the other party was maliciously destroying material; I said " WP:BURDEN should not be used to maliciously destroy valid information." Immediately after that, I stated that I examined material that had been removed and discovered that the material was not obviously valid and hence there was a reasonable basis for removing the material. Regarding the other parties participation: please read my prior post. Regarding sourcing: I'm glad to hear you are familiar with processes for finding sources - I look forward to seeing your constructive contributions to the article in the future. --Noleander (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

:::It is vaild information, else we wouldn't be going to such lengths to add it in. Sure, maybe according to most Hoppingalong did have a right to remove it, but that still doesn't mean it's not valid information. Regarding the other parties participation: I'd like you to know that I very carefully read your post before responding to it (I don't know who doesn't and I would not condone them), but you're not responding to my points whatsoever in this post or your past post. This plan is very simply the compromise between the two DRN editors that was come up with to solve the dispute. Of course everyone needs to be in agreement before it goes forward. You seem very eager to end this discussion prematurely. If a dispute was filed in the first place, that means that two or more editors disagree. Now you can't just end that with assigning one editor to go against the other in a move that would only eventually benefit the article, you need one or both of the disagreeing editors to realise what they are doing wrong, and how to do things correctly. Would you end the Boris Malagurski DRN just by randomly choosing one of the editors and telling him to go against the backs of all of those other editors? No, that would be completely wrong. And that is only one reason why I am telling you now that this is vital and mandatory for this plan even to begin. It is absolutely essential that you notify and allow for the other editor to state his agreement.--ɱ 11:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

::::It looks like only a single party is participating at this point. So I'm closing the DRN case due to lack of involvement by the other party. I suggest that future discussions happen in the article talk page. If another stalemate occurs at the talk page, a WP:RFC should be opened, which has a couple of benefits for this situation: (1) more uninvolved/random editors will provide input; and (2) if a consensus emerges, the result is can be formally captured in the RfC closing process. --Noleander (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|UseTheCommandLine|20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=It looks like the conversation here has stalled, while there appears to be some progress on the article talk page. I am closing this case and sending it back to the article talk page. Please open a new case on the same topic if the dispute cannot be resolved there. Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|White privilege}}
• {{pagelinks|Talk:White privilege#Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language}}

Users involved

• {{User|UseTheCommandLine}}
• {{User| Apostle12}}
• {{User| Malik Shabazz}}
• {{User| groupuscule}}
• {{User| Darkfrog24}}

Dispute overview

User:Apostle12 maintains that additional mitigating language is needed about the existence (or lack thereof) of white privilege. other editors generally feel this unnecessary, as the article starts with "in critical race theory" indicating a limitation to that academic domain.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, asking for clarification on WT:MOS about WP:ALLEGED

• Note: someone also asked for advice on this on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel, and received very little input apart from suggestions that they avoid arbcom, and a suggestion from myself that they should pursue WP:DR, which may have led them here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

provide additional eyes and suggestions for helping to integrate all viewpoints.

I may have jumped the gun by attempting some edits before the dispute resolution process really began. If so, I apologize. My attempts were intended to avoid the use of mitigating language ("alleged" and "might" were rejected by other editors) by clarifying that the discussion of "white privilege" is taking place within the context of a clearly defined academic field. The first paragraph of the lede now reads:

:Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that non-whites experience. In critical race theory, white privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Most such theories focus on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies.

I believe this paragraph now conveys clearly that we are describing a way of looking at things rather than defining an objective reality. For me this solves the problem, because it allows the theoretical discussion to proceed without proclaiming the universal accuracy of a certain perspective.

I made some other changes to the language of the lede. I think sticking with "non-whites" instead of using "non-whites" and "people of color" alternately, is a better choice for this article. Many people, especially latinos who consider themselves culturally white yet whose skin color is more pigmented than most whites, bridle at the "people of color" descriptor. Some of those whose skin is a lighter tone feel that use of the term "people of color" creates a racial amalgum that is artificial given the vast and varied peoples included under the "people of color" umbrella: blacks, latinos, asians, native americans, east asians, and so on. Anyway probably best to keep it simple. Apostle12 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I believe my concerns have been addressed with the recent edits to the article by Aposte12, but I would still like to participate in this dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggested on the talk page that the existence of "white privilege" was not controversial, and supported by apparently overwhelming academic consensus—evidence for which came from a Google Scholar search. One important point is that white privilege doesn't have to be an overall accounting of whether it's "better" or "easier" to be one race or another, everywhere. "White privilege" is advantages that a person gets for their "white" skin. No "alleged" about it—that's the definition. The specifics of what those advantages are may be more controversial. groupuscule (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I made exactly one comment in this discussion. I'll summarize it here.

This is the text in question as it currently stands in the article:

:In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience.

Apostle12 wants to add the word "alleged" before "advantages" and again before "disadvantages." Others say that this would be improper or violate WP:ALLEGE.

I don't think that "alleged" would be used improperly. I do believe that some mitigating language would be best. However, there are plenty of other words that we could use that don't have connotations of criminality or untrustworthiness the way "alleged" does.

The core of the matter is that, unlike, say, the theory of evolution, white privilege isn't backed by hordes of specific studies. There are many ways of explaining the phenomena with which the concept of white privilege is consistent. There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot, and there are things about it that are purely hypothetical, like whether being white itself is what gets people more housing options (which can also be explained by socioeconomic differences).

In its current state, the lead presupposes that the advantages and disadvantages of whites and nonwhites, respectively, are all real and proven. It might be best to say something like "possible advantages" or "might or do," as follows:

:In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people may or do accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color may or do experience.

"May or do" seems a bit awkward but it acknowledges that white privilege covers both proven and as yet unproven inequalities. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:OK, I am opening this up for discussion. (One editor has not commented yet, so we are proceeding without him.)

:Let me start with a couple of questions; Roughly how many editors support each side of this debate? (being in the minority doesn't make you wrong, but it is something we consider if there are no policy-based reasons to choose. See WP:CONSENSUS.) Are there any compromises that both sides might be willing to accept? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::What are the sides, exactly?

::I was more or less recruited from WT:MoS, where I'm a regular. I stepped in, looked around and gave my two cents. I did the same here when asked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

One statement above caught my eye:

"There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot..."

I think there is a problem with assigning the word "true" to such statements (on either side). One could just as easily say that race-based affirmative action is itself an example of black privilege. The problem is how to strike the right balance in the article. Just tacking on "alleged" is clunky and really doesn't show the subtlety of the issue. We need to come up with neutral and encyclopedic language that doesn't sound like a recruiting poster for the Aryan Nation or the Black Panthers. I am open to suggestions here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Uninvolved Editor/DRN Volunteer - I think I understand the concern from both sides, and I wanted to make a suggestion for a rewrite of a sentence in question.

"Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that non-whites experience."

Could be written as:

"Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses on perceived advantages and disadvantages, based on race, accrued from their position in society."

Solely a recommendation, and maybe to lead people in the right direction. I feel it would be less clunky to find a way to point out that the (dis)advantages are perceived -- there may be a better word to be used, but I feel a neutral term that implies that some (dis)advantages may be completely real, while others may not be. Hope this was helpful in any way! Acronin3 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of pages that use different wording than the current page does. Perhaps one of these might give someone an idea for improvements.

http://www.tvwiki.tv/wiki/White_privilege_%28sociology%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_privilege&oldid=335120958

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

: The process of establishing WP:NPOV is of course very delicate when it comes to topics concerning race. I want to caution everyone that simply 'neutralizing' language does not automatically create a neutral viewpoint. I also want to emphasize that just because race is a psychosocial construct doesn't mean there can't be objective facts relating to how race affects society. It is a painfully objective (and abundantly verifiable) fact in the United States that people with darker skin are more likely to be targeted by law enforcement in public places. This fact does not prove that it is 'better' or 'easier' to be white on the whole—these generalizations probably cannot be established as matters of encyclopedic fact, and should be treated as allegations or frameworks from the perspective of some people ("critical race theorists"? "most scholars who study race in the United States"?) who analyze them. We might hope for a neutral society, in parallel to our neutral encyclopedia, in which there was no systematic racial discrimination. But in fact it is dangerous to generalize our neutrality in this way. Brown v. Board ended legal segregation in the American public school system, but it would be completely inaccurate to say that Brown led to integration when by all reports American schools are more segregated than they were in the 1950s.

:Guy Macon, I like the wording on both of those pages that you've linked. The concept of "white privilege" should not be made overcomplicated or qualified and hedged in order to be explained. I would note that Wikipedia has over tens of thousands on articles on the institutions of white America—e.g., the United States (wow, this page really says "Christopher Colombus discovered...")—without flagging them as specifically white. But you can't go to the page on Maryland and write "The Europeans who colonized Maryland wiped out the people who already lived there and for two hundred years amassed wealth by forcing enslaved Africans to work for them" in the lede—it's simply not done, even though (IMO?) this statement is accurate from the perspective of global history. (I also want to highlight and dispute the idea that the Aryan Nation and the Black Panthers are comparable extremes to be avoided. You could just as easily compare the Black Panthers to an organized group of white people like the US Senate. By the way, Eisenhower avoided meeting with civil rights leaders according to the same logic: 'if I meet with you, I'll have to meet with the KKK'—even though one group was entering public spaces nonviolently and simply asserting their right to be there, whereas the other was responsible for lynchings and mass terror.) These types of bias on the encyclopedia are of course related to (if not precisely examples of) "white privilege". Thank you everyone for discussing these issues with open minds. I appreciate how many thoughtful and unique perspectives are expressed here. groupuscule (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:I think the sentence in question has been largely left alone for several days, even as the dialogue here has expanded, and the dispute has become broader. There is additional discussion on the Talk page as well that i think may be relevant. Issues of scope seem to be quite problematic here. One editor is adamant that the language of the lede should limit the application of the term to a particular academic field, even as that "field" is trans-disciplinary, and the phenomenon being described, as ethereal as it may sometimes be, is referenced in a wide range of scholarly literatures, including but not limited to law, sociology, annthropology, and nursing. It feels like the lede should probably be more substantially rewritten, as the "focuses as much on" construction seems nearly as clumsy as the simple insertion of "alleged", but i have had difficulty coming up with language that maintains NPOV while still talking about white privilege as a conceptual framework for thinking about the distribution of advantage in society (broadly defined), rather than as a theory. I am additionally hesitant to make such revisions because given this experience, I am loath to potentially create new opportunities for the insertion of minimization language, and frankly, the rest of the article needs more work than the lede. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|resolved}}

{{drn filing editor|Brickcity55|19:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= It appears consensus is for inclusion of national origin, however what that is depends on further discussion on the article talkpage. Closed as resolved with further collaboration needed to iron out details at article. Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Game of Thrones (TV series)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Brickcity55}}
• {{User| sandstein}}

Dispute overview

In short, The user sandstein keeps trying to remove country of origin out of the lead. I, however, think it should be there as it keeps with the consistency of other popular tv shows and frankly, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be. Game of thrones should be labeled an American series in the introduction. Sandstein asked for a third opinion and we were given one, but no decisions have still been made. Sandstein then took it upon himself to start changing the disputed content without any type of discussion at all. I fear he may be starting an edit war

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

3rd opinion, I've also asked for a vote and have tried discussing this on the talk page. Sandstein doesn't have any reasons for his negative actions but he keeps doing it

How do you think we can help?

I want many other editors to weigh in on this issue. This isn't about the origin if the show, but the confusing choice by sandstein to want to remove it from the lead because he doesn't agree with it and it is in almost every other popular shows and movies.

The article this relates to is {{la|Game of Thrones (TV series)‎‎}}. This is a minor content disagreement about whether the lead sentence should describe the series as an "American television series" (Brickcity55's preference, for consistency with other articles), a "British/American television series" (an IP editor's preference, probably because many UK people are involved), or whether it should mention no particular nationality at the outset (the preference expressed by myself and I think two other people, because the lead says a few words later that the series was made by an US channel). Brickcity55 and the IP editor were recently blocked for edit-warring about this, and I solicited the opinion of others via WP:3O. I don't quite see the point of bringing this here, but I suggest that any who have an opinion about the content issue express it on the article talk page.  Sandstein  19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor that responded to the 3O request. I am sure that both Sandstien and Brickcity55 have the best of intentions, but I think this is a pretty straightforward issue. My opinions are on the talk page. I humbly ask both editors to simply take a three day break from this article and do other things. I am sure that when you return things will be more in perspective for each of you. You both seem like reasonable people to me. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I do not believe that there is any clear policy-based answer here between the "American" and "nothing" versions. (Anyone asserting the "American/British" version, however, needs a reliable source for that assertion; there are plenty such sources out there supporting the fact that it was made for a U.S. network, to say that it has a British origin would require sourcing.) Consistency does not favor the American version; unless there is a policy or guideline requiring consistency between articles, each article stands on its own and what's done in one article has no control over what's done in another article. That's not to say that consistency is not a good thing: it just means that no editor can insist on it without support from policy/guidelines. I don't know what's done in other articles, but I think that the "American ... U.S. channel" construction is redundant and unnecessary, so I favor the "nothing" version. Oh, and by the way, one editor keeps referring to a "vote." Things are not decided by votes at Wikipedia, but by consensus which is determined by more than just counting hands. Finally, I would note to Brickcity55 that since he introduced the "American" version, that the No consensus provision of the consensus policy says that since another editor has objected to it, that it must be removed unless consensus can be established to keep it. It would appear at this point that what opinion there is seems to be against its inclusion rather than being in favor of it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Vote, consensus whatever you want the call it. The point is for more people to get involved in the discussion so that a decision can be made in a respectful manner and not a bullied one. Putting American in the title would not be redundant and at any case a sentence could be rearranged, but once again, stating that it is redundant is an absolute stretch. If Sandstein doesnt want it there because of sentence structure then I'll change the sentence, that is what editors are for. But alas, there is no reason it shouldn't be there other than the fact that sandstein doesn't want it there. Unfortunately, that is not a good excuse. The information is important to the identity of the show and its development/background. Country of origin has been a part of wp articles since the beginning of wp. Why all the fuss now? What is the confusion coming from? I'm sorry but sentence structure is bit laughable considering how wp works.--Brickcity55 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I agree with Sandstein and Transporterman that the top two choices are "American" or nothing. American/British does not appear to be sensible nor supported by sources. I looked at 12 30 random articles on TV shows, including shows from France, US, Germany, UK, and Australian and every single one of them includes the nation-of-origin in the first sentence. Since that pattern represents the consensus of a large number of WP editors of a long span of time, I think this article should follow suit. Arguing that this one article - out of 100s (?) of WP television articles - should exclude the nation seems a bit perverse. Granted the "... US channel" following soon thereafter is a bit redundant, but that is easily fixed by moving the "US channel" to a later paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment - all articles of television series, as far as I can find, include the nation of origin in their opening. Including "American" is accurate, the dispute being an unable to discern the difference between an American originated production and a casting/filming location. There are numerous examples of films from countries that aren't even filmed in the country of their origin or even have local casts but the filming is still considered that countries film - not the film of the cast or the location. The American/British appendium would be accurate if this was a joint venture between HBO and BBC (as Rome (TV series) was before it), and while early on in the filming of Game of Thrones this was the idea the BBC pulled their support before an episode was ever filled. Including in the opening that it is an American television series should stand. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::@Lid: You may know this already, but just in case you do not, the lede begins, "an American medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO". The question, at least once the British thing is out of the running (and I think it is at this point), is whether it needs both the "American" and the "U.S.". The "U.S." was there before the "an American" was added by Brickcity55. Just wanted to make sure we were all singing from the same songbook. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment - The series was created specifically for US television so I am of the opinion that calling it 'American' as opposed to 'British/American' is the correct procedure in this case. Regarding the wording of the first sentence, that's a different matter completely but I think having 'american' and 'U.S. channel' is appropriate as many may not be familiar with HBO and specifiying it is good in this case. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

::I hadn't really thought of this until I read what I posted just above, but it also seems to me that "an American medieval fantasy" sounds as if this was a fantasy set in the Americas or involving Americans during the medieval period. That interpretation might seem so improbable as to be not worth considering, but we are dealing with fantasy and, indeed, that is exactly, if it had been set a hundred years earlier, what the 1632 series would have been: an American medieval fantasy. Just a thought. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:::I see your point but considering that the medieval period is, first of a period in European history, it's either not a 'medieval fantasy' at all since it is set in a different universe or it's 'medieval style'. Technically. But that is getting pedantic so we shall leave that ol' chestnut well alone. Additionally, medieval fantasy is linked so readers can click to alleviate any confusion. If someone wants to rewrite the intro so 'American' and 'medieval' don't follow each other they can go ahead but since this dispute is about including 'American' rather than 'British/American' or nothing we're getting a bit off topic. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I wrote these comments on the talk page but they are more appropiate here: There is no confusion. The show is produced by hbo so the issue is black and white. Where a show or movie is filmed does not impact the country of origin of a show. Filming locations change, so does the origin change with it? No. Casting changes. Does this change origin? No. If two seasons from now, the cast is majority Irish and the show is filmed in Australia, would the show the be Irish-Australian? No. The show is American created, American produced, and American controlled. In short, it is American. I don't understand this fearful attitude ( which apparently is only for this article and not the hundreds of others) when it comes to putting country of origin in the lead. As far as concern about redundancy, let us remember-- this is wikipedia. As editors surely we can allow ourselves to change sentence structure and move "U.S channel" further down in the paragraphs. The medieval fantasy is not an issue at all as described by Cabe above. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:Listing a few options for opening sentence, in no particular order:

:# ... an American medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO.

:# ... an American fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO. [mention medieval later]

:# ... a medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO. [mention American later]

:# ... an American medieval fantasy television series created for HBO. [mention US channel later]

:# ... an American medieval fantasy television series. [mention medieval & HBO & US channel later]

:# ... an American television series created for HBO. [mention medieval & US channel later]

:Just tossing out some ideas. To me, #1, #4 and #5 seem superior. --Noleander (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

:It's really not that important, but I feel that labeling the series "American" in the lead based only on the production's origin borders on original research, given that the locations, much of the crew and almost all of the cast are European. What's the sourcing situation? Procedurally, it might be significant to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brickcity55 has established that Brickcity55 has created multiple accounts and has used two of them to participate in the discussion.  Sandstein  09:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::As previous users have pointed out, the nationality of the cast and crew has little to do with the nationality of the production. The show is produced by HBO (an american channel) who are owned by Time Warner (an American company) making it an American production. The main issue in this dispute in this definition of the production. Sourcing that it is produced by HBO would be enough to have "American" in the lead. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::It's made and paid for by an American company, yes, but it's not self-evident to me that this means that it can be labeled "an American series" in shorthand. That conclusion strikes me as original research. What does "American" actually mean in this context? By convention, we so label people according to their nationality, and corporations according to where they are incorporated, but creative works aren't persons and don't have a nationality. Curiously, the practice of assigning a "nationality" to works appears limited to films and TV series; I can't recall articles about "an American novel" or "a French painting". "American-produced" would be correct (if awkward), but "American", as though the series were a person, strikes me as odd. That's something we could have a WP:MOS discussion about.  Sandstein  13:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::I don't know how it works for TV shows, but films nationality can be determined by the nationality of those involved. So Dredd is British because it has a Briths director, writer, producers and some cast and crew, but also South African according to the credits because it was filmed there, but not Indian or AMerican, which is where the funding came from in part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::And isn't it co-produced by an Irish company? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Be mindfull of WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you feel it is worth having a discussion in WP:MOS that's another matter. For now, the defacto standard for TV shows and movies appears to be to include the nationality of the production company so I'd be inclined to include it for now until a MOS discussion has flushed out a general concensus.

::::In regards to your point of corporations being assigned where they are incorporated, GM are an American car maker and, thus, their products are, by definition, American. It doesn't matter if the designer of a car is German, the factory workers are mexican, canadian etc. It's still an American car, it's not original research to say this. Likewise Game of Thrones is a product of the US company Time Warner. A creative work produced commercially is still a product. Thus I would postulate that Game of Thrones is an American TV show. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::I'm inclined to suggest this compromise: That the current "American ... U.S." formulation be left in place, this DRN thread be closed, and everyone troop over to MOS to try to come to a generalized solution. I'm a U.S. lawyer and have to say that once we get into the issue of nationality of a piece of property such as this, the issue can get bigger the more that you chew on it. If you take a look at the [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/companycredits IMDB production page] for this series it lists five different production companies. Just to avoid fighting over the details here at Game of Thrones, let's instead take an imaginary series "Fozzlewozzle" based on a book by Joe Brown, a Canadian. US-incorporated channel OBH acquires the TV rights to the work from Brown, but because OBH doesn't actually engage in the filmmaking business through its own employees, contracts with an independent production company Parapet Productions to create the series. Parapet is incorporated in the Bahamas, but has its actual office in London. As part of its contract with OBH, Parapet gets a fee but also obtains a 10% interest in the film. Sources do not make it clear whether that 10% is an equity interest (the film is 90% owned by OBH and 10% owned by Parapet) or a royalty interest (Parapet gets 10% of the net or gross earnings). In truth and in fact, Parapet is really just a producer, not a filmmaker, so it "hires" a French-incorporated filmmaking company to do the actual filming. The film is shot entirely in New Zealand using an international cast and crew. Once the film is in the can and ready for display, OBH decides at the last minute that the series just isn't right for the U.S. or U.K. market and shows it in South Africa through its South Africa subsidiary. What's the nationality of this series? Just in the first step: American OBH may own the rights (or maybe only 90% of them, who knows), but not one employee of OBH ever laid a hand on a camera or built a set. Does the fact that Parapet owns either 10% of the film or 10% of the profits make this a American/Bahamian film? Or, if so, is it a American/UK film, since the only real connection Parapet has with the Bahamas is a piece of paper filed in an government office there? Or is it a — pick one — Bahamian or UK film since HBO is really just the rights holder? Or is it a French film since Parapet didn't do any of the actual filming. Does it depend on who makes the creative decisions? What if part of Brown's licensing deal with OBH was that he gets to participate in the creative decisions? Or is it a South African series, since it was shown there first or because OBH's ownership in the series was sold (or was it just licensed?) to OBH's South African subsidiary. In the real world — and I speak from experience — it may be virtually impossible to know the exact legal relationships between the parties involved in bringing the book to the screen due to contractual arrangements which are never made public. In the case of Game of Thrones, for example, who are the four producers listed at [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/companycredits http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/companycredits] in addition to HBO? Were David Benioff and D. B. Weiss hired on as employees of HBO, or were they contractors? If they were the latter, did they just receive a fee or a piece of the action? For that matter, was it really them, individually or was it corporations or other legal entities of which they were owners or executives? I don't have a clue to either the right answers as to Fozzlewozzle or as to Game of Thrones, but what I strongly suspect is that the identification of a nationality with a movie, TV series, or other entertainment product is more of a generally accepted convention — if that — than it is a precise, legal analysis and, because of that, reliable sources can conflict without possibility of any clear reconciliation. If my suspicion is correct, then there are two questions which ought to be resolved: First, whether Wikipedia should include national appellations, even if there reliable sources to support them and, second, how are they to be analyzed. As can be seen with Fozzlewozzle, there can be as many answers to that as there are people who look at the issue and resolving that kind of this is the proper focus of policy-making. For that reason, this discussion should end and it ought to go to a discussion at MOS (not, before someone suggests it, at a Wiki-project, due to the effect of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::I'm in agreement that this is the correct way forward. Do the original instigators of this dispute also agree to this fair compromise? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that a broader MOS discussion would be helpful to determine generally when and how to label creative works with a nationality in the lead sentence, especially in situations where the national association is not evident. What would be the appropriate MOS talk subpage? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? (Brickcity55 probably won't be able to reply soon, as they've been blocked for socking.)  Sandstein  18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::::I think the best Manual of Style (MOS) page would be Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television, specifically in the section on the Lead paragraphs, namely WP:TVLEAD. In the TV MOS, there is already the guidance: "For television articles, the first paragraph should consist of basic information about the show, such as when the show first premiered, country, setting, genre(s),... " [emphasis added by me] but maybe some details could be added to address shows with international aspects to the production. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::The MOS for films may be instructive: " At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified. ... Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." [emphasis added by me]. --Noleander (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::::::Agreed. Please see Rome (TV series). The first sentence in this article is "Rome is a British-American historical drama television series created by Bruno Heller, John Milius and William J. MacDonald."--Amadscientist (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}

Let me propose a resolution to this DRN case:

1. The first sentence will include the nationality (either "American" or "British-American" or whatever the sources justify)
2. If there are any ambiguities or subtleties about the nationality (and there are!) then those will be explained later in the lead section
3. The above two resolutions follow the Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines for TV and Film. The MOS guideline for TV should probably be updated to include the "If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances a ..." guidance that is present in the Film MOS.

Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:This seems reasonable and fair mined.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks for pointing out the existing MOS wording. I read the part about "If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph" to mean that in ambiguous cases we may refrain from listing the nationality as a label (such as "American" or "British-American" in this case), and indicate the national origin only by giving the nationality of the main elements of the production (in this case, US writers, producers and creators, mostly UK and Irish cast, various European locations). I would prefer that solution, because in multinational ventures such as this one (even the target market appears global rather than limited to any one country), appending a "nationality" label looks like original research, unless of course there are a preponderance of reliable sources for such a label. It's still not clear to me what "nationality" even means as a concept applied to collaborative creative works. Our article defines it as "the legal relationship between an individual human and a state". This can't apply to works such as films or TV series, which are not humans.  Sandstein  08:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the consideration of British-American in the lead is there is no proof that this is a joint venture like Rome was. There shouldn't be any confusion of origin of the show as it clearly states that it is produced by hbo, an American company. Where does british come in? We can't just make things up as we go. Actors will change as do film locations. This is weak evidences of origin confusion. Editors that insist that the show is British must find one source saying that it is. Or are sources not needed for wp now? Ownership is just that, ownership. The actors don't own anything. They are employees.--Brickcity55 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

::I am not sure that can be said as accurate. However, I was not suggesting that it was indeed a joint venture between the UK and the US, just that the Rome article does suggest that it should be stated what country of origin the series originates from or the production companies themselves are derived from. Let me take a look and see whats what. But as Orange Mike states, if it is American, it should state that.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you start trying to determine country of origin based on actors, filming locations, directors, writer, set designers, make up artists, producers and special effects companies get ready to do a lot of work as editors because all articles will need to adjust to this new style. As editors you can't just randomly pick and choose which articles the style guidelines will be applied to. --Brickcity55 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If I open up a business and hire 6 Japanese and 10 Australians to work for me, who owns the business. The lead is usually reserved for owners, not contributors. There is a difference. I own the business- that should be in the lead. The employees are contributors, their contributions can be noted in the following paragraphs.--Brickcity55 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As editors, we can't just write articles without facts. We can't just look at a work, and say "I think this is more complex than the facts suggest. I don't have any proof of it, it just looks like there may be" in that case, anyone can remove anything from an article without proof that the original information is wrong. If you think the issue is complex, you need to have sources stating that it is. You can't just look at the show and think that because it has foreign actors in it, there must be foreign originators too--- especially when there is no proof of that--- only proof that there is one originator. Yes, the piece may be more complex than meets the eye, but you don't know that. The piece could have one owner--- HBO, as is stated in multiple respected sources, like the show's credits. Once again, determining origin by actors and film location is not good editing. The walking dead has 3 British actors in main roles, the show is taped in georgia, produced by an American company and is based on literature created by an American author. If they move filming to Canada, and all but one of the roles is played by a Brit, would the show the be a Canadian, British and American series? Or would it just be a British Canadian show? --Brickcity55 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

:It is created by an American company, for an American channel, from works by an American writer (when I first met George, he was still living in Dubuque). "... an American fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO" is the only formulation that makes any sense. I also strongly object to the persistent efforts to add "medieval" in there somewhere. It's fantasy in a harsh feudal environment: so what? The repeated use of the term "medieval" in a setting based on fantasy literature is nonsensical. Nobody calls Tolkien's Lord of the Rings "medieval fantasy" in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there consensus that nationality should be in first sentence? - Maybe we can break this into two steps:

1. Is there agreement that the article should follow the TV/Film MOS's and include some nationality in the first sentence, with clarifying details later in the lead?
2. What nationality should be in first sentence?

If we have consensus here that the MOS is good guidance, we can agree to (1) and focus on the remaining question of what nationality to use: American? International? British-American? Indeed, we could close this DRN case and move back to the article's talk page to resolve (2). --Noleander (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason why origin shouldn't be included in this article but in all the others. So yes, it should be included. Seeing as how there is no proof of anything but American ownership, American is the only nationality that should be in the lead. Evidence has to be given before anything else is added.--Brickcity55 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

:It looks as if we do have some consensus for inclusion of nationality. We just cannot determine what that nationality is at the moment. This may need a consensus on the talkpage, so I suggest closing this case as resolved and kicking the rest of the discussion back to the article talkpage for further discussion and research. While it is clear the series was produced for immediate release into the American market, it does have a very large multinational production. How this is worded depends on sources, but it does not appear that this was produced for anything but a US network. A good reason why Rome was considered UK/US produced was because the BBC was directly involved and aired the episodes simultaneously with HBO. But, the series was filmed entirely in Italy, in an Italian studio and using a large cast of Italian citizens and yet is not considered an Italian/British/American venture.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

::Concur that this DRN case should be closed, and the determination of nationality be taken up at the article talk page. If a stalemate is reached at the talk page, an RfC on the talk page may be a good option: that way lots of uninvolved editors can participate over the course of a month (vs DRN cases which are supposed to wrap up in a week) and the RfC can be formally closed. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Pass3456|21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason= Discussion was not extensive enough. Please continue to discuss this on the talkpage to find common ground. If, after an extensive discussion (required to file at DR/N) a consensus is not reached, feel free to re-file. Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Social_market_economy}}
• {{pagelinks|Talk:Social_market_economy#Expansion_of_the_article}} -> Talk:Social_market_economy#Expansion_of_the_article

Users involved

• {{User|Pass3456}}
• {{User| Mr. Mustard}}

Dispute overview

Mr. Mustard tries to add information that is subject to academic dispute as an undisputed fact

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion does not work since no one answered the requests.

How do you think we can help?

You could probably help to solve the discussed topics in an academic and NPOV way.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|3family6|22:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing: 5 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Crunkcore}}
• {{pagelinks|Talk:Crunkcore}}
• {{pagelinks|Kesha}}
• {{pagelinks| Talk:Kesha/Archive 4}}
• {{pagelinks| Talk:Kesha/Archive 2}}

Users involved

• {{User|3family6}}
• {{User| krazycev13}}
• {{User| Syxxpackid420}}
• {{User| Hadomaru}}
• {{User| Tryptofish}}
• {{User| Mabuska}}
• {{User| Jonjonjohny}}
• {{User| Rich Farmbrough}}
• {{User| Eduemoni}}

Dispute overview

For over two years, there has been on and off debate as to whether Kesha should be listed as a crunkcore artist on the crunkcore article, and if so, how. It stems from a mention in a single source, an [http://www.allmusic.com/album/streets-of-gold-mw0002001908 Allmusic review] of Streets of Gold by 3OH!3. Author David Jeffries states "Either way, 'My First Kiss is the zenith with a hook that incorporates kissing noises along with some come-on’s from crunkcore queen/special guest Kesha." The first objection of Kesha being listed was by an IP editor in August 2010. Also discussed was whether Kesha should simply be listed, or whether a more detailed explanation is needed. In January 2011, User:Lothar von Richthofen closed the debate as a speedy keep with the entry being a simple list.

The second phase of the debate opened the next month, when another IP editor claimed to have personally emailed Jeffries as to how serious his labeling of Kesha as "crunkcore queen" was meant to be. According to the transcript that this editor posted, Jeffries did not mean it to be a serious genre label at all. However, an RfC determined that this email is not a published source and could not be verified, so it was deemed unreliable.

The third phase of the debate was opened up by User:Chrisbkoolio, who felt that while Kesha should be mentioned, she should not be simply listed but rather given a more detailed explanation. The discussion basically ended with a decision by me and User:Syxxpackid420 to have a simple listing. However, disruptive edits from IPs over Kesha convinced me to ask for RfC. The resulting RfC wording for the article was: "Also, David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." Some editors, mainly Syxxpack, objected to this decision. I opened another RfC and Syxxpack supplied additional sources. These were unreliable. Discussion is now stagnant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been three or four discussions including two RfC's and maybe a third opinion request, plus two small discussions on the Kesha page. Page protection has been tried numerous times.

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea. :) Good luck!

Weird how this is the first thing that pops up when I come back to Wikipedia. Frankly, I just want this unnecessary debate to be over. In all honesty, Kesha is not a crunkcore artist under any stretch of the imagination. If people say don't keep her, then don't keep her. I don't think it's a necessary inclusion, personally, and it probably is inappropriate to cite an off-handed reference. I feel like this one can't be treated as black and white, sometimes a rule may need to take the backseat to logic. However, I won't argue if it's kept. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are we advertising David Jeffries, Wikpedia is not an advert.

Why are we using so many weasel words, the paragraph does not state they are but that they can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As there is only one source that refers to Ke$ha as such, and because it is only in an offhand manner, I feel we have no real reason to keep Ke$ha in any article about Crunkcore. Especially as this one small citation has caused so much controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I might have responded to a content RfC about this, a very long time ago, but I really have little memory of it, nor much current interest in the question. I came here because the bot notified me. I don't think I have much to offer the discussion, but if anyone would like me to come back and give it a closer look, please feel free to tell me that at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I only came across this issue when I volunteered via an RfC and my particpation has been quite limited. My view is still the same - if a source has stated Kesha is a crunkcore artist then it is sourced. IIRC the last time I was involved, one editor allegedly emailed the editor of that source as they disagreed with it however I objected as that is original research so is inadmissible as evidence that Kesha isn't a crunkcore artist. Personally I believe this issue boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE and is also one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia - unless the whole dynamic at the root of it has changed, yet from the description above it doesn't appear so... I think. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as User:Mabuska has said, this boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE quickly. The source supports this, and other sources throughout the history of the article have defended this addition. I support the use of the source and the inclusion of Kesha. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a little note: While the email may not be a RS (or more accurately verifiable) for citing in the article, if we assume that it is genuine it would be foolish to continue to include the genre assignation, sans any other RS. Our policies are there to help us produce quality product, not to get in the way of it.

I can see no other assignation of the genre Musique-radio says A écouter gratuitement sur Musique-radio.com, « My First Kiss » signé 3OH!3 et Ke$ha est le single choisi pour annoncer l'opus « Streets Of Gold » du groupe crunkcore américain. and that seems to be about it.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

The discussion itself was based solely upon a statement from a interviewer who described Pop and Electropop female artist Kesha as "crunkcore queen", however this source relies only upon one and one statement only, Kesha didn't label her work or herself as Crunkcore artist, in contrary, Kesha only participated in one track which is influenced by this style which is a song by 3HOH an yet another electropop american group, the song My First Kiss is the one that this interviewer used as reference, (IIRC) however like I stated in the discussion, this song is not crunkcore as well, which leaves this statement with a weak basis, to matter of comparison, Madonna is the queen of Pop, Michael Jackson is the king of pop, Elvis is the king of Rock and Roll and Aretha Franklin is the queen of soul, how comes a newcomer is the king of a genre or style?

Are uninvolved editors listed? Perhaps the filer included several uninvolved editors that merely commented in the past RfCs on this topic? The number of involved editors may be only 4 or 5. I mention this because it is customary to wait for opening statements by all participants, but with so many listed, it is likely that some will not provide comments. My recommendation is that the filer delete subsections above for editors that are not actively involved (meaning in the past month, in the articles' talk pages) in the dispute, unless those editors have already posted a comment. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:Sorry, this is my first time at DRN, so I am unfamiliar with procedure. I wanted to err on the side of caution and include most of the individuals who seemed to have made some contribution to the discussion that actually affected the outcome. I'll remove all the non-active participants who have not yet commented.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is recent talk page discussion? - A DRN case can only be opened if there has been ar recent (in the past few months) talk page discussion. I'm not seeing where the recent discussion is on this topic. I looked in the two primary talk pages and I don't see any discussion, for instance, the discussion on Keisha in the Crunkcore talk page is dated May 2011. Also, the article list at the top of this DRN case includes a couple of talk page archives from one or two years ago. Can the filer (or anyone) point me to links showing a recent talk page discussion on this topic? If there are no recent discussions, this DRN case should be closed, and the discussion needs to happen first on the talk page (yes, for the 3rd or 4th time). If the discussion is likely to be contentious, a WP:RFC should be opened on the talk page, left open for one month, gather lots of input, then closed by an admin. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

:The recent discussion is at Talk:Crunkcore#Upstart Magazine source. It was the ongoing conflict between myself and Syxxpack that prompted me to file this DR request. More specifically, I filed this because the dispute has spilled out onto the actual article, as a look at the edit history will show. Basically, Syxxpack has been reverting the article back to simply listing Kesha as an artist described as crunkcore, while I keep reverting it back to the RfC decision's wording. It is not an edit war per se, but it definitely is unstable and I want this conflict over. I don't care what the final decision is regarding Kesha, I just want this to be resolved.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::Further clarification: The reason that I have been reverting Syxxpack's edits is simply because I am trying to enforce the RfC decision. As I said above, I no longer care what the actual content is.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

:::Can you restate the RfC decision here (and give a link to it)? When was it closed? Was it closed formally by an admin? --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Looking back at the talk page, the discussion is very confusing. I'm actually not sure how the RfC's ended now. The first RfC debate can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrunkcore&diff=465060679&oldid=465028191|here]. I am the one at fault here, I was unfamiliar with how RfCs work and closed the discussion, possibly prematurely. That is actually why I opended the second RfC, which went nowhere, a bot closed the RfC as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrunkcore&diff=472554978&oldid=471250601 expired]. So maybe I try a third RfC?--¿3family6 _contribs 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::If the most recent RfC had clear consensus, it can be used as a starting point; but if the RfC did not achieve solid consensus, then it doesn't provide much guidance here. But let's not give on up the DRN process yet. Does anyone object to the simple wording presently found in the Crunkcore article: "David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." That is supported by the sources that I see. I have not yet seen a source saying she is not a Curnkcore artist. And I have not yet seen any proof that Jeffries is not reliable. Some editor comments, such as from editor Eduemoni, say she is not crunkcore, but his comments are not supported by sources. Unless there are some source saying that Jeffries was kidding, or other sources that say she is not crunkcore, that sentence looks pretty legitimate. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::::Purportedly Jeffries himself has said he was kidding. Unless we have reason to disbelieve this (pace Roth) we should not be including it unless the quote itself is a significant piece of commentary. If the artist is not anywhere described as crunkcore except in one throw-away remark, it would be undue weight to include that remark. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

::::::::Stating that a newcomer which sparked a lot of controversy about her vocals (either live or studio) and imagery, is the least ironic, people always praised Jessie J from day one, and said she had potential to become a queen, I find his statement about Kesha either a satire or a sarcasm. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}I would agree with Rich Farmbrough that using a single 'throw-away' remark is not enough to list her as 'crunkcore'. If further sources can be found to back up the genre claim then by all means, put it back in. However, I point out that according to WP:BURDEN the emphasis is on those that wish to include the definition of crunkcore to source it appropriately. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So can David Jeffries be removed from the crunkcore. Like 3Fasmily6 i don't care if Kesha is included. (Syxxpackid) 82.16.27.28 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Nlu|02:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing: 5 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|WT:FOOTY}}

Users involved

• {{User|Nlu}}
• {{User| Dsp13}}
• {{User| Kai Lau}}
• {{User| Mentoz86}}
• {{User| GiantSnowman}}
• {{User| Arsenalkid700}}

Dispute overview

There are editors -- particular, one {{user|Kai Lau}} -- who have been resisting any attempt at diffusing the large and unwieldy :Category:Chinese footballers and have reversed not only my own attempts at diffusion but also that of {{user|Dsp13}} at diffusion. They (and particularly he) do not seem to have any grasp of the principles under WP:CAT and refuse to learn how subcategorization works.

I've tried to reason with them, but they (particularly he) refuse to listen. Perhaps I'm getting too frustrated. Perhaps inappropriately so. But that's why I'd like some independent voices in to see if I have. Certainly I don't believe that people should simply reverse the hard work of others (in this case, myself) without good reason, and certainly acting as if they have no understanding of WP:CAT. (Another user in the same vein, {{user|Mentoz86}}, is now claiming (ridiculously) that geographically categorizing these players is OR -- as if it is OR that, e.g., Dalian is in Liaoning and Liaoning is in China!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There was a prior thread in which I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the consensus was going to be that someone else was going to try to diffuse the players by position, which will certainly cut down on the clutter. But the only attempt by Dsp13 to do so was reversed (again, without good reason, in my opinion). These editors are blocking diffusion with no good, grounded-in-policy reason. (For the earlier thread, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73.)

How do you think we can help?

Naturally, I'd like people to convince that those who (in my opinion don't understand WP:CAT) oppose the diffusion that they're wrong. :-) But that might not be what you conclude. What I really want is for neutral voices to step in and suggest a proper route to go about this. WP:FOOTY seems to be acting like a province of its own, which, as I explained WP:CONSENSUS doesn't allow it to be, but that appears to be falling on deaf ears, too.

I don't know much about either football or China, but I've done some categorization in the past. :Category:Chinese footballers is one of a number of very large national footballer categories, and Nlu was trying to diffuse it by geographical subregion. S/he was inclined to see resistance to this as parochial ignorance, or wilful obstruction, of the general need to diffuse large categories. Other WP:FOOTY editors reacted badly to this, arguing that the geographically diffused categories weren't natural or recognisable categories: (1) using the diffused categories required specialist geographical knowledge unavailable to most football fans; (2) the resultant regions were not as 'defining' of the footballer as nationality (as defined by international footballing bodies); (3) assigning a region to a footballer would in many cases be arbitrary or not well-defined. (I think some of these objections amount to saying that the geographically-diffused categories seem non-defining to football fans.)

My compromise proposal was to diffuse by nationality and position. I created and populated a Chinese midfielder category, and then hung back for ten days or so to see if there were any serious objections. Kai Lau reverted my population of this category (unfortunately I didn't notice at the time, since s/he informed me on an archived portion of my talk page). If s/he hadn't have done this, I planned to put time into populating categories by nationality and position - which I'm still happy to do in principle (let me know if that's wanted!), though I'm not at all interested in doing so without consensus. Dsp13 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My original concern as expressed in the earlier thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73 was that I find the navigation too esoteric for the casual football fan to understand compared to the traditional alphabetical sorting which we have now. Nlu has constantly argued that we read WP:DIFFUSE but clearly it states that "there is no limit on the size of categories" and compared to some of the more popular simular pages such as :Category:English footballers that goes up to 13,000+ then :Category:Chinese footballers is tiny by comparison. I have since tried to reason with Nlu where I suggested that what he is trying to achieve will as GiantSnowman points out create "mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles" (GiantSnowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)) and that if he still determined to carry out his diffusion then try :Category:Brazilian footballers instead because it is a more popular page and the reaction would be significantly larger in his attempt to change the general football consensus within wikipedia. Unfortunately Nlu's reply was malicious and he accused me of being a "child" (Nlu (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)). User talk:Kai Lau 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've only been involved in discussing this case at WT:FOOTY, and my main concern when it comes to categorization is that in the football-world :Category:Footballers from Foo is not the same as :Category:Fooian footballers. I've tried to propose different ways to diffuse :Category:Chinese footballers (and the 200 other similar categories), and I thought we reached a consensus to diffuse it by position. For some reason, this doesn't happen and User:Nlu comes back and starts over the same discussion, and we've tried to reason with the editor but it looks like the editor refuses to follow local consensus.

When urged by User:Kai Lau to diffuse :Category:Brazilian footballers instead, Nlu says that "he don't have the expertise over Brazilian geographical/geopolitcal entities". In my opinion, if we should include something in the article it should be sourced in the article, not use our own reasearch. That means that if we were add "Footballers from Beijing" to an article, it should be sourced in the article that he was from Beijing, which means that anyone could in theory diffuse categories like that without being a "expert on geography and geopolitical entities".Mentoz86 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My issue with diffusing by location is that is an absolute BLP nightmare. How do we know a person is from X? Birth place? Where they grew up? Where they live now? Nlu is not able to provide a cogent argument supporting his proposal, hence why it has not received any support at the relevant WikiProject. Diffusing by position is slightly better as there are more reliable sources which state position, but still not ideal - many players play in multiple positions, and it seems we are creating more work for ourselves. Plus why is Nlu only concernes with Chinese footballers? Any new category system should apply to all relevant categories, not the one you have most knowledge in. Showing a bit of OR, perhaps with his knowledge of Chinese geography rather than using RS to support his BLP edits? This isn't a 'dispute' - this is one editor failing to get consensus for mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles. Finally, to be frank, I don't see the point in diffusing the category at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GiantSnowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this will be short from me as I do not have proper use of a computer right now. Basically what Snowman and Mentoz said. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• This one is pretty clear cut. One cannot categorise articles based on original research, there has to be some basis for inclusion in a category in the article - just "knowing" that they belong in the category is insufficient. (To the other DRN volunteers, can you keep an eye on this to see if any more assistance is needed, but I don't think it will be required.) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• : That's not the key part of the issue, however, Steven. All these articles which I categorized have birthplace assertions, which appeared to be backed up by ball club Web sites at least (as well as such sources as sports-reference.com, which are generally reliable). If that's what's considered OR, then the birthplace assertions should be tagged as OR, which (correctly) they aren't because these birthplace assertions appear to be reliable. Certainly no one who is opposing me on these issues are tagging them with {{tl|cn}} or similar tags because I think they too realize that these are generally reliable.
• : The larger question here, really, is whether/how to subcategorize these articles, and as I've noted, the "You shouldn't take these out of the :Category:Chinese footballers category!" comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding about how subcategory trees work. What I was referring to as my expertise is knowing, for example, that a player who is confirmed to be from Dalian is, by the clearly factual and non-OR fact that Dalian is in Liaoning and Liaoning is in China, moveable to a Dalian-specific category. Beijing is in China; there's nothing OR about that. Heilongjiang is in China; there's nothing OR about that either. Meanwhile, the "why don't you go organize Brazilian articles?" assertion is a non sequitur because (1) I don't know which Brazilian cities are in what Brazilian states because I simply don't know Brazilian geography and (2) by that logic, why don't these people opposing me go edit pages regarding, say, pornographic actors? These editors edit footballer articles because they have knowledge and/or passion in them. They can't turn around and require me to go edit articles that I have insufficient knowledge in, while at the time insist that I can't use my knowledge here. Do we really need a citation on each article that Dalian is in Liaoning? That is so factual that it can't arguably be OR. It would be like requiring a citation each time that someone who's from New York City has to be shown to be from the State of New York. --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::*Nlu - please accept what we have informed you at the original discussions, and what Steven has said above. Your argument fails thusly - you have not presented a valid reason why the categories need to be diffused, and your proposal has BLP flaws. A webiste saying Player X was born in City Y does not actually mean that he is from City Y, or that region. To use Chinese examples - you could be born in Beijing to parents visiting from Shanghai, stayed there 2 days, and spent your entire life in Shanghai. You would say that they are from Beijing which is clearly not the case. GiantSnowman 16:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• :::That's your opinion that he/she is not "from Beijing"; articles throughout Wikipedia have been placed in "from" categories based on birthplace. I understand your point on it; I disagree with it. But again, this point illustrates that the issue is not about OR or verifiability; the issue is about what "from" means, and your belief on what "from" should be is at variance with the rest of Wikipedia practice. (See, e.g., Owen Nolan.) There shouldn't be a separate, heightened standard for footballers when the rest of Wikipedia doesn't impose such a standard. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• :::You also made the point of "there's no need to diffuse"; I opine differently. A category that is 550+ (and growing) in size calls out for the necessity of diffusion. No, there is no maximum size for categories, but a category that is that large or larger is useless for any purpose. As I noted above, the "Why don't you go diffuse an even larger category?" argument is a strawman. What I am seeing the argument as boiling down to is "we don't want an outsider to mess with our domain," which runs counter to the maxim that Wikiprojects are not supposed to be their own little domains. --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::::So there's disagreement as to which players fit in which category? There's no RS being used? Yep, like I said - BLP violation. 550 is not large for a category, there are plenty of others which are much, much bigger - football and non-football - why don't you try and suggest diffusing them? We're going round in circles here, so I suggest you listen to Steven's advice rather than carrying on. GiantSnowman 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

::I don't see how talk of OR and BLP are to the point. Nor do I understand the call to do this to Brazilian footballers rather than Chinese footballers. I don't know if this is receiving attention from a volunteer or not. It's a categeorization issue: maybe it might have been better discussed at WP:Categories for discussion. Dsp13 (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::It's OR because no references are being used to support the cats - just an assumption that being born in X means you are from X. It's BLP because it involves articles of living people. CFD would simply repeat the arguments we saw over at WP:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 09:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::: The issue with what the 'people from X' categories mean is that they don't have very clear criteria: I don't agree that someone mostly brought up in Shanghai, but born in Beijing, is "clearly" not from Beijing - these geographical cats are often used with the implicit assumption that being born in X means you are from X. I've never seen references used to support cats directly. Some footballers are clearly living, and pages about them shouldn't violate BLP strictures - but I don't see how that's relevant to the question at issue. I agree that restarting discussions often just means that the whole thing is rerun, so CFD might be a waste of time - but at least people at CFD have experience at thinking about categorization specifically. Dsp13 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

::::: We should never use "assumption", implicit or otherwise - that violates everything that Wikipedia is about. GiantSnowman 09:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, the advantage of making assumptions explicit is that then they can be critically considered. I think some people have used these 'from' categories to just mean born in (this usage has the advantage that it has very clear criteria of applicability), others (you?) have used them to just mean grew up in (this is less clear-cut, where kids have moved around), and others have used them to mean born or grew up in. I'm not sure if the answer is to try to prescribe their proper usage more exactly, or to keep them as inclusive but less clear-cut categories. I think I agree with you that whichever way we go here, there are problems with wholesale diffusion of these large national categories to them. Dsp13 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Jytdog|01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing: 4 days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Talk:Monsanto#guardian ref_and_democracynow_ref_we_wikileaks}}

Users involved

• {{User|Jytdog}}
• {{User| semitransgenic}}

Dispute overview

Relevant article section is Monsanto#Continental_Europe. The issue here is about Wikileak cables discussing efforts by the Government of Spain and Monsanto to get help from the US government to support the Spanish Government's pro-GMO position. A user, Semitransgenic, introduced an article from the Guardian, the author of which has several POV statements, which semitransgenic wishes to quote. The particular quote is that the US was "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." This is POV and false statement. I've tried to simply delete the quote and replace it with the neutral and more accurate statement "Monsanto's Director for Biotechnology for Spain and Portugal and the Spanish Secretary of State for the Environment Josep Puxeu requested that the US government support Spain on the matter" Semitransgenic will not take out the POV quote. I initially did suggest getting rid of the Guardian article altogether as there are more NPOV and reliable sources. However Semitranagenic really wants to keep it so I yielded on that as there is other acceptable content in the article. But I feel the quote needs to go under the idea that "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." as stated in the reliable sources noticeboard. So I would like help. Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have talked extensively on Talk. Have proposed various other wordings, all of which have been rejected.

How do you think we can help?

Please review and judge if the quote is POV or not. Thank you.

:This is a matter of Jytog's POV over that of WP:RS sources.

:We have two reliable sources [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops][http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/03/08/genetically-modified-food.html], both of which adhere to WP:RS, and both of which unequivocally state: "U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto."

:He [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonsanto&diff=521370200&oldid=521367505 dismissed] a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/03/08/genetically-modified-food.html article] ("the new source does not support the quote "US diplomats in Europe were working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto") when it very clearly states: "Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."

:Furthermore, Jytog maintains that an article written by a sub-editor (since 1995) of The Guardian newspaper is not suitable Wikipedia content and he believes it fails WP:NPOV.

:There has been an extended discussion on this matter, where multiple editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonsanto&diff=521194227&oldid=521193790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonsanto&diff=521203901&oldid=521194227][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonsanto&diff=521206347&oldid=521203901][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonsanto&diff=521377355&oldid=521370200] offered opinions, all of which were subjected to WP:IDHT by Jytog.

:Instead, he has chosen to edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&diff=521158806&oldid=521156794][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&diff=521390638&oldid=521363317][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&diff=521433088&oldid=521416032][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&diff=521439738&oldid=521437689] on the content, so that a statement, as quoted, by both reliable sources, would reflect not what it actually says, but instead state what Jytog wants it to say.

:Consensus does not exist for Jytog's POV. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I initially responded to "White Terror" resolution below. Not sure what to add here; I opened the dispute and made my request for help above. I disagree with most of what semitransgenic says above. I have found him to be desirous in general of creating POV content in the Monsanto article and intransigent with respect to arriving at consensus on NPOV language. He has stuck to his guns on including this quote about the ambassador working "directly for Monsanto" On other points I have yielded but I think this quote is out of bounds POV and cannot stay. So I asked for help. Thanks.

:Could someone take a look at this one ASAP? Looks relatively straightforward :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Cwmacdougall|22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing: Five days with no activity. Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|White Terror (Russia)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Cwmacdougall}}
• {{User| 67.169.177.176}}
• {{User| InformedContent}}
• {{User| Tomcat7}}
• {{User| 75.51.171.155}}
• {{User| EverlastingGaze}}
• {{User| Darkness_Shines}}

Dispute overview

A highly biased editor cherry picks sources, some highly questionable, to insist on a number of points on which he refuses to compromise, preventing even modest amendments. Current unresolvable differences include:

1 - Is Victor Serge a reliable source, given that he was never an academic historian, and was a paid propagandist for the Red side in the Russian Civil War, and an unrepentant revolutionary afterwards?

2 - Is it right to include terror by enemies of the Whites as "White Terror"?

3 - Is it right to cite a small narrow group of historians implying they represent all historians in contentious views saying "Historians emphasise..."

4 - Is it acceptable to used biased language like calling one side "the Government" and the other "movement" when both had similar claims to legitimacy, or talking of the "heroism" of only one side.

5 - Is it acceptable to quote a defence of Red Terror (especially with no comparable defence of White)?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Long tedious discussions on talk page, appeal to NPOV Group, appeal to Russia Group

How do you think we can help?

Resolve the five immediate differences above and insist that all editors of the article write from a NPOV.

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|stale}}

{{drn filing editor|YuMaNuMa|13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Closing: 4 days without activity}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|iPhone 5}}
• {{pagelinks| iPhone 4S}}

Users involved

• {{User|YuMaNuMa}}
• {{User| Tagremover}}

Dispute overview

User Tagremover repeatedly asserted that information in the "Reception" section of the iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S must be supported by scientific analysis, he then went on to claim that all information in that section is bias, supported by unreliable sources and undue. Basically the user is questioning the entire concept of Critical Reception and the content that should be included in that section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page

How do you think we can help?

Analyse the situation and inform the user about what is acceptable and what is not in the reception section.

First restore the article tags you deleted, section review, with 4 issues, on iphone 5 and 4s. Tagremover (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on technology articles for the past 2 years or so that I've been editing on Wikipedia, the critical reception section are by nature subjective, however they have always been accepted in Good Articles and even Featured Articles. Example of Good articles that I have contributed to and consist of a critical reception section include, iPhone 4S, iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), many more articles particularly ones on movies also consist of critical reception sections, which include critics from published newspapers commenting on the movie and its flaws and strengths. Although the iPhone 5 critical reception section is quite lengthy, its entirety is supported by reliable references, most of them are commonly used by mainstream newspapers, yet the user claim that the section was one of the most poorly referenced section he has seen. The user also claimed that it was bias despite receiving an extensive copyedit by User:McGeddon who removed the remaining bias language in the section (words like also, additionally, etc), as you can see the process seemed to be quite meticulous. The section in addition to providing readers with information about the reception from critics, included flaws and defects that the device suffers from, all of these claims were extensively sources with both mainstream media and technology newsblogs, all of which are confirmed reliable sources by RSN and most were cited by mainstream sources sometime during their published history, yet Tagremover still claimed that the section is poorly referenced and bias. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 13:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a regular volunteer on the noticeboard. Thank you for submitting a request, and welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard! Without commenting on the actual dispute just yet, I've noticed that an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_5&diff=521993040&oldid=521992447 RfC] was requested on the talk page on 8 November. Although I understand you eagerness to address the dispute, discussing disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums, including RfC, is discouraged. I recommend closing either the RfC request or the DRN request. It's better to have the discussion concentrated in one location. Whichever dispute resolution forum you choose is entirely up to you. Hope that helps,--xanchester (t) 14:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for informing me about that, I've removed the RfC template from the iPhone 5 talk page hoping that this will automatically retract the request on the page in which the articles needing RfC are listed. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• In response to Tagremover's comments - No, you're questioning the entire concept of critical reception in all articles, the tags are invalid as the sources are considered reliable by RSN, the article is neutral as it includes perspectives from most reliable sources hence it represents the topic "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources", not undue because paragraphs in that section are referenced with numerous sources from several publications hence it's considered a significant issue or viewpoint and the section is considered factual as it's supported by reliable sources hence all information is assumed correct unless proven otherwise by another reliable source. Note that one of the articles that is disputed is currently a "Good article". YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Elcid89|21:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Withdrawn. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Allen West (politician)}}

Users involved

• {{User|Elcid89}}
• {{User| Niteshift36}}
• {{User| several IP users}}

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether it is appropriate to label Mr. West as an outgoing incumbent, given that he has now been certified by the State of Florida as having lost his election.

The entry is being changed back and forth, and the moderator Niteshift36 has gotten involved. Several other, IP users are also making this change to the article in question. Moderator Niteshift36 seems determined to advance the partisan position that the election has not reached finality. His motivations for this I will not presume to speculate about.

My own rationale for making the change was posted on the talk page for this article.

Subsequent to posting my talk page explanation of my proposed rationale, I have abandoned all editing activity with regard to this issue, as it seems clear that there are control / power issues coming into play and I do not wish to be a part of those. Despite this, Moderator Niteshift36 has begun accusing me of sockpuppetry.

I do not believe that this issue is being handled in a professional, dispassionate and detached manner, and think that it would be appropriate if another moderator, one not personally attached to the content of this article, assumed control of this issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have explained my proposed rationale for changing the article, and I have abandoned further editing of the article with regard to this issue pending resolution.

How do you think we can help?

Remove Niteshift36 from the issue and allow another moderator, who can view the issue from a detached and cool-headed position, to assume control of this issue.

I will adress this only after the complainant removes his false allegations about partaisanship, ownership and his general commentary about me and not the issue. If this can't even start out as fact based, then I see no point in engaging. Until then, I remind him that 3RR isn't really limited to a 24 hour period. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• This issue should be handled for Allen West consistent with how it is handled for other incumbent Representatives who lost their reelection bids or are retiring. Has anyone checked other articles to determine what is the usual practice? A request for input might also be posted on the talkpage of Wikiproject Congress. Too much of editors' time and effort should not be spent on this dispute given that it will expire by time in a few weeks, so simply figuring out what our usual practice has been and following it is the best move here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::*I have no interest in pursuing this further. I do not believe an amicable resolution to be possible, and in light of Niteshift's abusive and demeaning language (specifically referring to me as "whiney" and "spastic", as well as his using the word "shit" to refer to my commentary) I have no interest in further discussion with him or attempts to resolve this issue. In that regard, I have abandoned editing the article "Allen West (politician)" entirely.

::I do suggest that his behavior be reviewed with regard to whatever standards of professionalism (if any) exist for editors / moderators. Treating contributors with derision and contempt is not a productive strategy, and it's certainly not a professional one. My regards ... Elcid89 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|failed}}

{{drn filing editor|Chilum aw charrs|01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=No response by opposing editors (who have edited since receiving notice of this filing). Consider a request for comments to obtain additional participation by the community if the dispute continues. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|Fardeen Khan}}

Users involved

• {{User|Chilum aw charrs}}
• Milescoast.wiki (Blocked User)
• {{User|Neelkamala}}
• 84.204.41.210 (Blocked User)
• {{User|2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9}}
• {{User|190.145.26.2}}
• {{User|39.47.254.208}}

Dispute overview

For many years the article contained information about Fardeen Khan being of Afghan (Pathan) origin through his father and grandfather, but very recently a POV-pusher came along with anon IPs and began washing off the Afghan information plus categories. Everytime I readd the info the disruptive person(s) reverts my edit. I even improved my sources by citing Encyclopædia Britannica, The New York Times, The Times of India, Mid Day, Pajhwok Afghan News and many others. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1556489/Feroz-Khan], [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/arts/29khan.html?_r=0], [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-28/mumbai/28055231_1_feroz-khan-fardeen-sanjay-khan], [http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/may/180511-Kabul-Pathan-community-Hindi-films-Bolly-Khans.htm], [http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2011/12/25/khans-bollywood-book-published], [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/interesting-facts-and-figures-fardeen-khan_100187491.html], [http://www.solutionastrology.com/celebrtiesastrology.asp?celebrityid=1188], [http://buzz.indiashout.in/2009/04/news/sundari-khan-laila-khan-fardeen-khan-firoz-khans-obituary/], [http://www.bharatwaves.in/portal/modules/piCal/index.php?action=View&event_id=0000007643], [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/arts/29khan.html], [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-28/news-interviews/28002788_1_feroz-khan-pathan-anil-kapoor].

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

I don't know

From reading the discussion on the talk page. It seems that there is some confusion regarding heritage and nationality. As far as I understand the heritage goes (subject - born in india) - (subject father - born in india) - (subject grandfather - born in afghanistan). Would this be a correct summary of his lineage regarding the Afghan heritage? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

:The issue is over ethnicity and common descent, he is ethnic Pashtun (Afghan/Pathan) through his father. My version is simply making readers aware that he is not an ordinary Indian but has roots to Afghanistan, and who knows he probably has many or some distant relatives in Afghanistan. The idea behind this is to give accurate and complete background information to readers, especially since his article is very short and is [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fardeen_Khan viewed by over 30,000 people every month].--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

::As long as you're not saying he is 'Afghan' but are saying he is 'an Indian of Afghan decent' I can't see a problem. It's factually acturate. Make sure it's sourced correctly and it's hard to dispute a fact. Additionally, have you informed the other parties of this DRN request? I have refrained from responding again in the last two days as I was waiting for further comment by the other involved editors. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

:::It would be silly of me if I say he is Afghan because all Bollywood film stars are Indians. I chose this wording in the article "Through his father Fardeen Khan is of ethnic Pashtun (Afghan/Pathan) descent. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1556489/Feroz-Khan] [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/arts/29khan.html?_r=0] [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-04-28/mumbai/28055231_1_feroz-khan-fardeen-sanjay-khan] His grandfather was born in Ghazni, Afghanistan, and immigrated to India in the 1930s. [http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/may/180511-Kabul-Pathan-community-Hindi-films-Bolly-Khans.htm]" And yes the other party was notified, by someone else though.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Largoplazo|14:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Inadequate prior talk page discussion. Please see my posting of 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC) in the closed discussion for other alternatives. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Kenya}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Madagascar}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Tanzania}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in São Tomé and Príncipe}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Rwanda}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Nigeria}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Ivory Coast}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Ghana}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Liberia}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Sierra Leone}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Guinea}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in Senegal}}
• {{pagelinks|LGBT rights in the Gambia}}

Users involved

• {{User|Largoplazo}}
• {{User| Psychonaut}}
• {{User| Jenova20}}
• {{User| AfricaTanz}}

Dispute overview

Please see the details at User:Largoplazo/Note_on_LGBT_rights_in_African_countries, where I summarized the dispute regarding 13 articles on LGBT rights in African nations. At least one other user, User:Psychonaut, has communicated with us and commented in my summary, so I skipped the Third Opinion option, and RFC seems to require tagging all 13 articles separately and creating independent discussions, which didn't seem to be a constructive approach. The current status is the person who, presumably, wrote the text in dispute has re-inserted it two or three times, and has registered as User:AfricaTanz but hasn't replied to Psychonaut at User talk:AfricaTanz.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I created a page as a place for discussion and linked to it in edit summaries. I contributed to Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84_reported_by_User:Jenova20_.28Result:_1_week.29 (Jenova20 notes that the user has been involved in conflict elsewhere). I skipped 3rd Opinion because it wasn't just him and me, and RFC calls for approaching all 13 articles independently.

How do you think we can help?

Develop consensus on whether User:AfricaTanz is violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SOAPBOX and, as has been suggested, WP:OWN, whether the user is simply going off on a tangent only incidentally related to each article's topic. Give guidance as to next steps if the content in question should be deleted and AfricaTanz won't cooperate. Thanks.

:Having read the contributions of others so far, I guess another way to state my goal is that I want to find out first how to get a ruling on the content so that, if it's in agreement with my view, I'll then have a basis for following up on the user. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

For several months an anonymous user in the 70.253.0.0/16 and 75.34.0.0/16 IP ranges has been editing various LGBT-related articles, most of which User:Largoplazo listed above. The editor adds a lot of useful and well-sourced information, much of which nonetheless constitutes synthesis of legal arguments and interpretations strongly favouring a pro-LGBT point of view. For instance, he (or she) will start by listing various provisions of a country's constitutions, laws, and international treaties; these do not themselves directly address the subject of homosexuality, but are rather concerned with notions such as the right to privacy or the right to health. The editor will then argue that, taken individually or in aggregate, these provisions bind the state to legal protection of homosexual acts, and furthermore that the country's existing anti-homosexual laws and practices are illegal, unconstitutional, criminal, etc. Besides the synthesis, the edits are problematic in that the legal sources upon which his case rests are often quoted to excess; long passages of the same charters and treaties have been copied and pasted across several articles. Whenever other users, including Largoplazo and I, tried to remove or reword problematic portions of his contributions, he reverted without discussion. We tried engaging him on various user talk and article talk pages (e.g., User:Largoplazo/Note on LGBT rights in African countries) but never received any response.

Eventually one editor, User:Jenova20, brought the matter to WP:AN3 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week)). The IP account began accusing other editors of vandalism and other breaches of policy, but still refused to address the problems others had raised with his own edits. The IP ranges were therefore blocked for disruptive editing and failure to communicate. Immediately afterwards, a new account, User:AfricaTanz, was created and began editing the same articles in the same style. It is therefore almost certain that AfricaTanz is this same anonymous IP user. However, he has so far ignored requests on his talk page to discuss his edits. He seems to have taken some notice of the objections, as his first edits were to provide references for some of the conclusions he draws. However, these repairs are largely superficial; the chains of legal reasoning remain novel (or at least unsourced) and the conclusions are presented as matters of settled law rather than the opinion of whatever NGO he decided to cite in support of them.

This editor is clearly a very intelligent and passionate individual, and I would like nothing better than to see as much of his material as possible remain in Wikipedia in one form or another. But until and unless he works with others to moderate his propensity for original research and to present what remains in a factual rather than polemic manner, I'm not sure what we can do. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well where do i start? I first met the user as IP 70.253.75.84 on LGBT rights in Texas where he attempted to edit war over a collapsing table. He posted a message on my talk page under the header User talk:Jenova20#Manual of Style about collapsing tables where he accused me of violating MOS policy for collapsing said table and then later told me to "mind my own business" after i tried to justify the collapsing table. This then started again when i made edits he didn't like to Template:LGBT rights table Africa, where i neatened up some descriptions to keep them in sync and added a medium graphic between yes or no. He went about reverting every edit with sometimes condescending summaries such as "don't add the cute little graphics without knowing the often-complex subject matter". The edits to this page made me think he just wanted to war since he had not edited tha page before me, but followed me there to revert after my talk page argument with him. I'm also now thinking that he simply wants to control all the LGBT in the... articles from other editors and is resorting to edit wars to do so with very little discussion.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:LGBT_rights_table_Africa&action=history Here] is the history for the template and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Texas&action=history this] is for the LGBT rights in Texas article. It wouldn't be so bad if he understood that he can't just edit war to get his point across and accuse others of policy violations rather than discss in a reasonable manner.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN. Other than the one comment at Largoplazo's talk page has AfricaTanz ever discussed this matter elsewhere, either under that username or (presuming for the moment that AfricaTanz is the 70.253..../75.34.... IP editor) at some other talk page? Per our guidelines and FAQ on the talk page, a single comment by a disputant is not ordinarily enough discussion to bring a dispute to this noticeboard. I'd ordinarily close it, but because it spans such a large number of articles I do not want to do so without giving the other editors a chance to demonstrate that it has been discussed somewhere. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:I never met AfricaTanz or had contact with him, but if he is/was 70.253.75.84 then there's a short discussion on my talk page here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

::I am another DRN volunteer. If the bottom comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week) is correct, that user has made a lot of edits but has not engaged in any discussion. (I am not sure that a short discussion about collapsing tables counts). TransporterMan, do you think this might be something we should refer to WP:ANI, or is there a dispute here that we can help with? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:The problem is the patent near-refusal to discuss. The user has not responded to my last response to his one contribution to my article, or to Psychonaut's message at User talk:AfricaTanz. Accordingly, I would delete the material again, except there's that pesky three-time rule, supplemented by my expectation that the user would revert again and would scream about me being the edit warrior and violations of WP:BRD (as he has done in his edit summaries).—Largo Plazo (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

:::My inclination is that (unless someone can point out where it has occurred) that this listing is premature. If AfricaTanz/IP shows indicates willingness to discuss the matter, that discussion should take place on one or more article talk pages. (Pick one and put pointers to that discussion on the others if it involves common issues; use individual pages if the issue is unique to those pages.) If on the other hand, if s/he continues to make edits which users feel are highly questionable and does so without demonstrating a clear willingness to discuss them, then perhaps a RFC on user conduct would be useful, or even a direct appeal to ANI. (There was a discussion here that included quite a bit of sentiment that continuation of editing without discussion was a conduct matter subject to sanctions.) One of the problems which I feel that AfricaTanz's opponents must face is that it is, in my opinion, unlikely that they will get very far with the generalized argument, "You're engaging in OR/synthesis. Stop it." (Indeed, when expressed in a generalized manner like that it becomes, in my opinion, a conduct issue, not a content issue, because it focuses on what the editor is doing, rather than what s/he has done: that is, it focuses on the editor, not his/her edits.) If AfricaTanz chooses to engage in discussion, the only productive (if time-consuming and labor-intensive) thing to do, again in my opinion, is then go back and work on one individual instance of alleged OR/synthesis at a time unless the same individual edit has been made over a range of articles and can be clearly identified as such. Please note that I am not adjudging in this comment that AfricaTanz has done anything wrong; I have not examined that question and neither have nor express any opinion about it at this point in time. I am merely giving my opinion about what his/her opponents ought to do if the allegations against him/her are supportable, and only saying that much in connection with what I think ought to happen to this listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

::::Being unwilling to discuss, especially for controversial edits, is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia's editing policy. WP:UNRESPONSIVE covers this point in detail. If the editor continues to refuse to engage in a substantial discussion, it's treated as a conduct dispute, and should be taken to the venues that TransporterMan has listed, ANI or RFC/U.--xanchester (t) 17:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}

{{DR case status|closed}}

{{drn filing editor|Nirvana2013|17:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}}

{{DRN archive top|reason=Discussion under way in another forum (specifically, the requested move discussion, which is itself a form of dispute resolution). The issues raised should be taken into consideration by the administrator or editor who closes that discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• {{pagelinks| Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism}}

Users involved

• {{User|Nirvana2013}}
• {{User|Paul Barlow}}

Dispute overview

General dispute over what is and what is not NPOV and a reliable source, which is causing disagreements over the article title between, not just over Paul Barlow and I, but a whole group of editors (see Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

See Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism

How do you think we can help?

An experienced Wikipedian view and commentary (preferably posted at the article's talk page so its viewable to all editors involved), acting as a neutral 3rd party on article issues such as reliable sources, NPOV and the article title would be helpful. We are going round in circles.

I am not convinced that we are at the stage that we need dispute resolution. In fact, I would say that what we have is a case in which one editor has a very strong POV and is not finding very much support for it, despite his best efforts. User:Nirvana2013 made some changes to the long-established article Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism, which is on my watchlist. I noticed that he had moved a reference to the biographer Robert Payne to the lede. Payne asserts that that Hitler's vegetarianism (along with his other ascetic tendencies) was fiction invented by Goebbels. Payne's biography of Hitler is well-known to be very unreliable. (See comments by user:Lebob [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism&diff=522643436&oldid=522636941] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism&diff=522611573&oldid=522611034]) This led to a user talk page discussion that was later transfered to to the article talk page Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism#Robert_Payne. Nirvana2013 then tried to get the title of the article changed, making a page move request [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism#Requested_move]. Overwhelmingly, independent commentators have been against such a change Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 then wanted to remove categories that link the article to the vegetarianism topics. The inappropriateness of this was noted by user:Betty Logan [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism&diff=522644817&oldid=522643436] and myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism&diff=prev&oldid=522650850]. I really don't know what specific dispute Nirvana2013 wants to "resolve". Nirvana2013 seems to believe that an anti-vegetarian "POV" is involved in some way, but I think he misunderstands how that term is used on Wikipedia. If anything more weight is given to assertions by some vegetarian activists who want to deny Hitler's vegetarianism than strict application of WP:RS should allow. Historians (and seemingly most informed editors) say Hitler was a vegetarian because evidence suggests that he was. This is not part of some strategy to belittle vegetarianism, or to promote Hitler! Paul B (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

{{DRN archive bottom}}