Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?			Would you like to help?
Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.			Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Autism	In Progress	Oolong (t)	14 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Markworthen (t)	2 hours
Sri Lankan Vellalar	In Progress	Kautilyapundit (t)	13 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Kautilyapundit (t)	11 hours
Imran Khan	New	SheriffIsInTown (t)	8 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 11 hours
Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523)	In Progress	Abo Yemen (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Abo Yemen (t)	13 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 04:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

X Japan

• X Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

We are currently disputing the genre list on the X Japan Wikipedia site. The following genres are listed: heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal. The common consensus is to change the genres that X Japan is known for, including Metal (the term “metal” encompasses all of the metal genres listed above), Rock, Visual Rock, Visual Kei. These genre additions have been consistently denied by a user (xfansd), for reason stating that X Japan is considered a metal band in a variety of sources, writing “A genre of a band is determined by what sources label that band's music in general.” The author of the page cites the following source when listing the genres: X Japan: Best Review http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936. The article lists numerous genres beyond just “metal.” For instance, the headline itself reads, “Reliving the Height of Japan’s Superlative Visual Rock Band.” Later in the article, you will find “…most revered Japanese rock band” and “fleeting genre known to fans as “Visual Kei” (aka “Visual Rock”). Thus, we are asking to acknowledge ALL genres listed in this article if this is what the author will base the genre selection on. In order for the contributions to be accurate, the following genres have to be included: “Visual Rock” “Rock” “Visual Kei”. We are using this article as the main source indicating X Japan’s “genre,” so all genres listed in the article need to be included.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ladyslime (talk · contribs)
• Xfansd (talk · contribs)
• Mikaxxxxxxxxx (talk · contribs)
• Leslieulm (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=X Japan}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, the issue has been raised, and each user has logically made their argument on the talk page. The page has gone through many freezes, no longer allowing contributions.

• How do you think we can help?

We need an administrator to monitor this situation and prevent just one person (xfansd) from dictating the terms of the page. Please take note of the general consensus among the users.

Leslieulm (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

X Japan discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

If this is only one user ignoring consensus, this is no longer a content issue but a conduct issue.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue Curb Chain, I think there was a reason why ItsZippy directed this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can I have some statements from the involved parties? And perhaps we can work from there and determine whether or not this is conduct or content? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there any reason to defer the issue here?Curb Chain (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't say it explicitly. But, I think ItsZippy knows what he's doing. Besides, you can't just listen to one party and decide that they are right about only one editor not listening to consensus. Curb Chain, feel free to close this thread or give 24-hours notice with this template: {{subst:DRN status|<reason for closure>}}, if any of the other parties don't respond. Kind regards :) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am in no way saying which party is right or wrong, just pointing out that if one user didn't hear it, s/he is disrupting the Project.Curb Chain (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's just wait and see what happens with this thread. Give it three days or so, provide 24-hour notice and then close. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 15, 2012 at 14:47 (UTC) because abandoned Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 14:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the users were recently notified. Can we please extend the deadline for them to respond? Also, if this request is abandoned, can it be raised again? Because if not, xfansd can simply ignore this thread and "win." If you notice on the X Japan talk page, xfansd has removed numerous edits from a variety of users. This is not just one person against another, but one person deciding how to edit this page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any apparent reason why xfansd has removed these edits? And yes, if a thread is closed prematurely, a new thread can be filed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. xfansd removes additions to the genre portion (he is adamant about referring to the band as a "metal" band). This is fine; however, as I argued above, X Japan is known for many different genres outside of metal, and those genres should be included. Please see my post on the talk page. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't think User:xfansd is just going to win. What arguments have you brought forth for justification of your version? What arguments do you have that justifies your position/version? Also, is there discussion on the talk page? Please use the talk page first and if you cannot come to a consensus there you can file a new dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion on the talk page and a lot of sources. But which are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia's policy? In addition, a note to Ladyslime, please don't use CAPS LOCK to express your opinion, see WP:CAPSLOCK. It is considered disruptive and will not provide any more weight to your argument. How about a compromise, such as "X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock and heavy metal band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi." Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was just now notified of this. This is not a case of me ignoring consensus, it is a case of what reliable sources call the band. All the other users involved are new editors who didn't know Wikipedia uses reliable sources. The subject of the article Tweeted that they don't want to be called metal on Wikipedia, and subsequently there was a wave of vandalism where I had to have an admin protect the page. Ladyslime and Mika created accounts simply to make the article reflect what the subject wants, which of course Wikipedia does not cater too. I then had to explain reliable sources to them on the talkpage. The discussion was actually dead, as Mika said they will look for sources to support their claim (which I assume they didn't find). 4 days later Leslieulm restarted the same discussion and ItsZippy suggested to move it here, 2 days after that it was brought here without me knowing. It seemed to me the dispute was already over before being brought here, and now the whole thing is blown out of proportion. Xfansd (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The author cites one source as to why it is listed as metal. However, the article also lists "rock", "visual kei rock, "glamour rock", etc. The author selectively chose which to include. We have tried to incorporate more of the genres (I can support with a list of reviews, descriptions, etc. that also list other genres outside of metal), but these changes have been refused by xfansd. We have brought up this on the talk page (please refer to this), and numerous people have been blocked and denied changes, all from one person. I am in no way asking to remove metal (they can be considered a metal band), I just think I have proven the justification in adding more genres. We were directed to bring the dispute here from an administrator since no resolution was reached from just the talk page. Also, I apologize if any if my formatting was against Wikipedia standards. No more caps from my end. Leslieulm (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a reliable source to support that X Japan is rock? Regardless, according to List of rock genres, "metal" is considered a "rock" genre, so would saying "X Japan is a rock band" work because metal is a sub-genre of rock so it's all inclusive when you say "rock". Sincerely, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back. Xfansd (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I also want to make it clear that while Leslieulm claims in the 'Dispute overview' that I cited this source (assuming she means me when she says "author", which I don't understand), I never did. That source has been used since 2007, which is way before I started editing Wikipedia. Xfansd (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it should be reverted back because there was no reason provided by the editor to remove the source and change the text. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean xfansd as the author, i meant the original author who published the genre portion on the right hand of the page. xfansd had done a great job with monitoring this page, and did change the body to "rock." Someone else did change it back. What we would like is to have more genres added to the right hand portion of the page, where it breaks down genre, members, etc. If metal is a subgenre of rock, why can't rock also be included? And when it comes to reliable sources, the source used to list the metal genres 1.) is outdated and 2.) lists other genres. The author (I repeat, NOT xfansd) is being selective on which genres to include. I am citing the same source as the author in my argument, and if he was able to use this, I assume it is in fact a "reliable" source. Leslieulm (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to conclude that all mentions of genre should be "rock" because that's what everyone agreed upon according to xfansd: "On the talk page I used that same reasoning and we agreed the introduction can say "X Japan is a rock band". Some other editor changed it back." Whoever that editor is, was working against consensus and reliable sources. Leslieulm, I didn't say xfansd or anyone was the author of the reliable source, all I said was whoever the editor that changed the page, X Japan, from "rock" → "metal" was wrong to work against consensus and reliable sources. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about different sections on the wikipedia page. xfansd did change the body to rock band. Sometimes it changes back and forth, but for the most part, it does say rock. We are asking for additions in the genre listing under the background information on the right side. Those changes have been denied repeatedly. I am asking to add to that, not remove or change.

64.183.116.78 (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by "all mentions of genre should be 'rock'". So rock should be added to the genre list. Please log in. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Logged in. So should I be the one to make the changes? Or should an administrator, to guarantee that they won't be changed back? Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's done by you or an admin. An admin can just as easily be reverted as you would =) So, the best course of action is to see what the others think. If no one objects within the next 24 hours, I think it's safe to make the necessary changes to include "rock" and/or change to "rock". Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am against adding rock to the infobox. When I said we agreed, I specifically used "in the introduction" because that is exactly where we agreed upon, not in the infobox (Mika, who is suspiciously not partaking in the discussion here but still knew to change it, changed the intro back already). Some band articles open with "is a rock band" and then have only the more specific genres (heavy metal, etc.) in the infobox. Black Sabbath is a perfect example as nobody can argue they are anything but a metal band, yet it opens with "are an English rock band". And to be honest I agreed to that simply as a compromise to stop the edit war, most articles on metal bands open with "are a metal band". And you are getting ahead anyway, because we still don't have any reliable sources claiming that they play rock music. Xfansd (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Metal music is a sub-genre of rock music. Saying rock is all-encompassing and includes metal. For that reason, maintaining that X Japan is a rock band in the lede of the article is sufficient. Further explanation in the infobox saying that it's rock is unnecessary because it should explain the sub-genres, which it already does. Let's break down:

Y X Japan (エックス ジャパン?) is a Japanese rock band formed in 1982 by Yoshiki and Toshi.[2]

N Genres: Rock, heavy metal, speed metal, power metal, progressive metal, symphonic metal, glam metal[1]

Unless, someone produces a reliable source that says X Japan is a rock band and only plays rock, then it should not be changed. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How about we use the same "reliable" source that the author uses to get the "speed metal, "power metal", etc.? Where he also describes the band as "Visual Rock Band" and "Glam Rock" and simply "Rock"? How is this not considered a reliable source if it is the source that lists all the metal? I am using the same source as where the "metal" descriptions come from. Here is the link again: http://www.asiaarts.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=7936.

Leslieulm (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is this 'author' you are referring to? An editor (we're known as editors on here) who edited the page? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am just referring to the person who initially listed the genres on the right side and cited source 1 as to why he lists them. I don't know who it is, and I don't think it matters, but if we are using his source, we shouldn't be selective in pulling the genres from the article. Leslieulm (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. We've not had a great deal of reliable sources provided by anyone in this dispute, and I think that might be causing problems. We seem to be agreed that the article should reflect the reliable sources that we have, so it might be worth collecting on this page the relevant sources. Secondly, I think we need to decide whether, when dealing with a source which describes the band both as rock and metal, we should use rock or metal. The source that has been mentioned on this page uses both rock and metal - when this happens, do we use metal because it is a subgenre of rock, or rock because it includes metal? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I would be happy to provide some links of reviews and other sources about rock band. I think it is fine to include metal, but to just say that the band is metal is extremely limiting. The band is also considered "hard rock," another subgenre of rock but definitely distinct from metal. Please note Slash's page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(musician) - a band that is considered both metal and hard rock. Here is a Hollywood Reporter article that lists X Japan as Hard Rock, as well as Power Metal: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/x-japan-ready-tackle-north-91449. Here is another article from the Chicago Sun Times referring to them as both as well: http://blogs.suntimes.com/music/2010/08/lollapalooza_x_japan_makes_us.html. Leslieulm (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy, thanks for the note. Leslieulm, please look over this not very long section on reliable sources: Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources. And then afterwards, please look at this section on non-reliable sources: Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources. It seems that all three of the sources produced fall under non-reliable sources. Suntimes as a blog. Hollywoodreporter and asiaarts.ucla.edu are unreputable or are not well known. There are of course, limiations to these non-reliable sources, because when used appropriately, they can be a reliable source. I think if the source from asiaarts.ucla.edu lists the sub-genres states, "visual rock" and "glam rock" - those genres should be used instead of the broad genre of "rock". Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. And I agree completely -- this is what I am arguing for in my original post. Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Leslieulm (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another genre listed in that article is "Visual Kei" and if you look at the Visual Kei page on wikipedia, it lists X Japan as a pioneer of this genre. This should also be included: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_kei. Also, the article from UCLA does not cite symphonic metal or power metal. Can we see the source for that? Leslieulm (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the asiaarts.ucla.edu source was only being used to cite the glam metal claim. As in WP:V it says "it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged". And like I said on the talk page, since I've been working on the article, nobody has ever disputed the genres before now. So Leslieulm, are you against having symphonic metal and power metal listed? What I am saying is, if you have no problem with it then we don't have to put a source there. If you are disputing those two, here are some for power 1, 2, and about the only one I found for symphonic metal 1. Also want to point out to Whenaxis that "visual rock" isn't a genre, it has no article, and why put glam rock when glam metal is already used. And while the very badly written and sourced visual kei article claims "some sources refer to it as a music genre" (personally I cringe at this), if you check every visual kei band's article it is never put in the infobox. X Japan's introduction already makes it clear that they pioneered the movement. Xfansd (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I just think it is very limiting to just say that X Japan is a metal band, and only list various types of metal. They have such a diverse range of music, and can be considered hard rock, visual rock (which redirects you to glam rock, not glam metal, so glam rock would definitely be preferable), and others. The following article in the Huffington Post says: "The band went on to pioneer an entire genre in Japan called "visual rock..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110308/as-music-x-japan/). Also, please note all of the sources listed on the X Japan site - they include loudwire, blabbermouth, jrockrevolution, etc. If we are using these as sources, I can list many that describe x japan as both rock (various types) and metal. Like I stated, I do not want to remove metal. I simply stated that the cited article did not list symphonic metal because all genres being put forth are being questioned. Looking at Sirius Radio, he debuted on The Boneyard, the stations Hard Rock channel. Also, going back to every visual kei band's articles, none of them put it in their info box. However, it is a genre, and X Japan (as the pioneer of it) should have it included in their info box. Leslieulm (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

(Section break)

I see that there is an issue where the words, "rock" and "metal", are being used interchangably throughout the article. I think that one mention of "rock" in the lede is sufficient enough for the reader to know that the sub-genres that are listed as metals are considered rock (as it is already). So, xfansd is right by saying that duplicate genres are not necessary. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, however, many people just go to the info section for a quick overview of the band. To look there, it lists x Japan as purely metal. And there are other sub genres of rock that should be included (glam/visual rock, hard rock, etc.) Also, Visual Kei is a genre and should be included under the genre tab. Again, that section is an overview where people may look initially, so I do think the other sub-genres should be mentioned there. Leslieulm (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Many people also read the lede. Why "glam rock" when there's already "glam metal"? Why "visual rock" when it just redirects to "glam rock"? Perhaps, just visual kei can be included - to avoid any duplication. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Glam rock because it is redirected from Visual rock, which makes it more appropriate than glam metal (if we are saying they are the same anyway.) And adding visual kei would be ideal. Thank you. Leslieulm (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No. That's not what I'm saying. Glam metal is a more specific sub-genre than "glam rock", but they are basically the same thing. For that reason, it should be left glam metal because it's a specific sub-genre of rock. Further since "visual rock" and "glam rock" are clearly the same thing, the same thing applies. So, I only think "visual kei" should be added to the list, with a source of course! Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. Why is glam metal considered more specific than glam rock? Is it because of the ambiguity of rock? Just trying to clarify. And it would be great if Visual Kei could be added. Is Billboard a big enough source? http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/global/japanese-artists-band-together-to-help-slash-1005074962.story. If not, I will do some more research, but even the official visual kei website (and wikipedia) discuss X Japan as the pioneer of the genre. Thanks!Leslieulm (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Metal is a sub-genre of rock. Thus, glam metal is a sub-genre of glam rock, therefore, making it a more specific sub-genre in my opinion. I think Billboard is good source unless it's written in a press release or biography format. Just to be safe, I'd look for a second source. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 25, 2012 at 23:38 (UTC) because stale or resolved Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots

• 1929 Palestine riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is a problem at 1929 Palestine riots - bringing it here (after first going to Wikipedia:ANI#Tagging_problems_during_heated_editing_at_1929_Palestine_riots) as it involves a number of experienced editors, the consensus building atmosphere has broken down on the talk page, and it doesn't fit in to other obvious notice board categories.

In the last two years, only 70 edits in total were made to the page until the last week when 11 users have made 115 edits so far. There is a very heavy talk discussion, and many open disputes. However two experienced editors involved in the discussion have removed two instances of tags from the article which were intended to give readers an indication of the ongoing dispute:

• [1], relating to the whole article, despite a clear explanation and 15 open parallel talk discussions here
• [2], here relating to a specific unresolved dispute, despite clear discussion here

The addition of these tags was done with the guidance in WP:TAGGING in mind, but the two editors mentioned appear to disagree that these tags were constructive. Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, detailed talk discussion back and forth with a number of very experienced editors

• How do you think we can help?

Grateful for views as to whether these tags are appropriate or not in this situation.

Oncenawhile (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1929 Palestine riots discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I am a regular mediator / clerk here at DRN. I've not searched the article history closely enough to be absolutely sure that I'm right about this, but it appears to me on quick examination that this dispute results from maintenance tags being added to the article and then being fairly promptly reverted. If this is correct, then except in a very few cases which are controlled by policy (for example, removal of CSD nomination tags by the creator of an article), tags are just like everything else at Wikipedia. If someone wants to place them, and someone else objects, then consensus must be achieved to place them. If consensus cannot be achieved, then a no-consensus condition results and, per this section of the consensus policy, that thing cannot be done. In this case, I see no consensus for the addition of the tags and, as a result, they should not be placed on the article. If the editor wishing the tags to be placed upon the article wishes to press the issue, then they should file a request for comments to see if support can be obtained from other editors for the placing of the tags. Until there is consensus, then the tags should not be placed on the article. This noticeboard is not a proper venue to try to obtain that support, but the listing editor has requested advice on whether the use of the tags is "appropriate", to which I would say that the only way they would be inappropriate is if the problems raised by the tags not only do not exist but do not exist to such a certainty that it would be disputatious editing to suggest otherwise, which would not appear to be the case here since action at ANI was rejected. However, even we presume (or assume in good faith) that they are appropriate, that does not mean that they must be there or that there is a right to insist that they be there since there is no policy or guideline mandating that they be there if they are appropriate: it is a matter to be decided by discussion and consensus. I would end by adding this opinion: maintenance tags such as these neither add nor detract much value to the encyclopedia and engaging in a dispute over them is generally a waste of everyone's time. Your time would be much better spent dealing with whatever issues the tags are intended to highlight than dealing with the tags themselves. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Transporterman, thanks for your response. I would like to respond to your thoughtful analysis to explain why I disagree with it, and that I believe this has highlighted a structural problem.

Having considered your post carefully, the key problem is the phrase "tags are just like everything else at Wikipedia". I understand what you mean, and with your experience I am sure you are right.

But this cannot be right in the spirit of what tags are intended to achieve. If tags are to have any value in highlighting disputes, they need to have a lower threshold. Specifically, consensus should be needed only to REMOVE tags, NOT to place them.

You may think that is sacreligious - how could we ever consider such a carve out appropriate?

This case is a perfect example. In one indident, tags were being used because a group of 4 editors had blocked consensus for a change. The change was supported by 3 editors. So a meaningful proportion of editors thought that key facts in the article were dubious. Tags were used to highlight this, but because the tags require the same level of consensus, they did not last long. If a lower threshold mechnism like the above was in place, the 3 editors would be able to use the tags to highlight their continuing disagreement, and thereby incentivise the 4 editors to find a better compromise. But instead we are now deadlocked and have a really substandard pov article which the reader is left blissfully unaware of. It seems self-defeating to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit which occurred on 17 April 2012, the reason was explained to you; three reliable sources were provided to substantiate the information. Despite this you tagged the information as 'dubious' and did not respond to editors' request to explain this baffling decision. The reason you gave for the other edit was this, you did not identify any NPOV concerns which editors could seek to rectify; rather, you uncollaboratively criticised "over zealous editors" with "techniques" that are "ridiculous".
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm copying this from AE, where I put it on the mistaken impression that the tagging was under discussion there: Regarding the nature of tags, I think that when there is an actual ongoing substantial dispute over content, then a tag noting the fact of the dispute is in order and removal of it by a protagonist while the dispute is still in full swing should be seen as edit-warring. I don't think a tag marking a dispute needs consensus from those engaged in the dispute, though a consensus from less-involved editors would of course be enough to add or remove it. (I'm intending these as general remarks, not to give an opinion on a particular tagging war that I have not studied very closely.) Zero^talk 12:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

@Zero: I do not believe that there is a policy or, indeed, even general community consensus creating a 0RR requirement for tags. I'll grant you that such would seem to make sense from the nature of the existence of the tag, but I think that we also have to take into account — and by saying this I'm not suggesting that they were or were not used in this way in this particular case — the fact that they can also be used to push a POV or as a badge of shame to cast doubt about an assertion when no doubt is justified (see, e.g., the current mediation going on at the Mediation Cabal about the "under discussion" tag in the lede of the verifiability policy). Due to that possibility, tags are just like most everything else here at WP, subject to being added or disputed on the basis of consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Diet in Sikhism

• Diet in Sikhism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The dispute is the current administrator of DIET IN SIKHISM, has deemed that ONLY an orthodox view of Sikhism should be presented, and NO un-orthodox views should have ANY merit. The core of the argument is about whether Sikhism the religion, the culture, the tradition has accepted or rejecting meat eating as part of its beliefs. Now the current ADMIN of DIET IN SIKHISM, has presented views, that show scholars with the understanding that Sikhism has had a benevolent view on diet, and has provided three passages from the sikh holy book to support. However in the opening passage of the article DIET IN SIKHISM, it states, how a number of sikh sects DO NOT adhere to this view that sikhism has a ambivalent view towards meat, suggesting only a vegetarian diet is allowed by the Gurus. I take the stance, that those sikh sects, of which their are many, and of which hold a vegetarian stance, should have their argument presented aswell as the view that sikhism does allow meat eating. For the interest of balance and fair play, both sides, orthodox and unorthodox POV should be included, in the same manner UNORTHODOX Shia islamic sect views are given just as much exposure as the orthodox Sunni sect are. Wikipedia does not PROTECT one side over another, it presents all information for a balanced article.

Now the scholars used here in this article to present a meat eating argument, have also said that while in THEIR belief sikhism has no view on diet, their Are passages against meat in sikh scripture, AND ITS THIS POINT, THAT NEEDS ADDRESSING! The current ADMIN on sikh history has deemed any Sikhism which doesn't agree with his own ORTHODOX stance as void.

The following passages are an example of the double standards issued on DIET IN SIKHISM, passages alluding to a ambivalent diet are kept, while the assertion from the same scholar that their are passages against meat eating, are rejected. From the same scholar, same book, same ISBN NUMBER, one rejected and one accepted, the accepted statement fits in with the ADMINS own orthodox stance which he has openly declared on his Wikipedia page.

1.QUOTE FROM ARTICLE - Gobind Singh Mansukhani states how vegetarianism and meat-eating has been left to the individual Sikh.

2.QUOTE FROM DELETED PASSAGE -scholars hold a view that Sikhism has an ambivalent view on diet, yet some accept that there are, “passages against meat eating”.

REF for both 1 and 2. Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-181-6, “There are passages against meat, in the Adi Granth”.

Both references from the SAME scholar, yet one is accepted which is favor of an ambivalent view towards diet, while another assessment from the same scholar admitting their are passages against meat eating, is not accepted. Why the Double standards?

The ADMIN accepted one and rejected the other to protect his own biased orthodox POV. The history blog of the article has centered around one issue being, one sided.

Now also i used REF BHAI GURDAS in possible evidence that supports the alternative scholarly theory that a vegetarian diet is ultimately the only way of life for a Sikh, yet while the ADMIN QUOTES Bhai Gurdas himself, he deemed my quotes from Bhai Gurdas as not valid, when he was DIRECTLY DEALING WITH ISSUE OF DIET. The whole article should show both argument and not one side.

OVERALL.

1. SIKHHISTORY EDITOR, using selective references, synthesis. The article in its original form, already DECLARES, that their are sikh groups and passages from the holy book against meat, which is declared by the same authors who the EDITOR cited and then rejected my use of the SAME AUTHOR when he suggested against the SIKHHISTORY EDITORS, personal POV.

we have acknowledgment that no meat is served in temple, we have many references in the original article that openly state, uncertainty about issue of diet, even sholars that where used in the original form of the article state how their is evidence against a meat eating diet, yet the EDITOR on sikhhistory deems it a closed matter, and does not give both sides the neutral POV to erase the issue of a one sided biased article. If you want i can separate the article in two sections ORTHODOX AND UNORTHODOX. I and all the other sects mentioned in the original article that state sects and passages against meat, to expand on that issue and give both sides their due, for a balanced article not anchored to any ONE specific religious body.

THANKS!

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Sikh-history (talk · contribs)
• ONEDHARMA (talk · contribs)

Told me to take to a dispute resolution board.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Diet in Sikhism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talked to editor, shown examples of doubt, and one sided article.

• How do you think we can help?

Bring balance to the subject, allow both POV of to be addressed, with scholarly debate and relevant verses. Address the one sided argument give balance to the subject that is not factual or a closed case.

ONEDHARMA (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

te u===Diet in Sikhism discussion===

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Thanks for the reply, but i made the suggestion to the editor of the board but he would not listen or even discuss the issue, i have stated that the editor has maintained his own personal views into the article. The editor stated i should go and seek this dispute resolution, because as far as he is concerned he doesnt want anything that he doesnt agree with on articles linked to sikhism, which i deem very one sided and a bit intolerant. Thanks, i would like this issue sorted, i have offered to create an orthodox and unorthodox section on diet in sikhism, i have presented the same scholars that where in the original article, that the editor cited himself, yet when i cited the same scholars to show that they themselves agree that their are passages against meat and many sects against it, the current editor of diet in sikhism again took it off. How can a person cite a scholar and then reject my use of the same scholar when it doesnt fit in with his own POV, which he stated as only being orthodox. I know wiki also has information on Shia unorthodox sect of islam, does that mean we only adhere to one persons view on sikhism, when that person has cited sholars that openly admit that their are passages against meat, if that is the case then why cant relevant verses be shown? Thanks again, i only reponded on here, because to be honest im getting lost with all the forms on wikipedia.lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue Hi. To start off, I think when talking with editors, you should tone down your comments. For example here, you used caps which implies that you are shouting. Most editors do not respond to such comments. They also don't respond to comments that are too long, so they just don't read it. I'm going to ask the other editor to talk with you on the dispute resolution noticeboard. But please focus on the content that you want to add and make sure that the information that you are adding is well sourced and the sources conform with Wikipedia policies. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I admit i got aggitated when my disputes where not being addressed, but i never abused anyone, it seemed like the current editors has NO reasoning what so ever, even on his page it openly declares a one sided pov. I gave him relevant evidence, with isbn, scholary debate, all sources where cited, NPOV, no original synthese, i took over 4 hours trying to make sure the article was up to standard. I have the additions i made on file, and you can view it to see, that my edits breached no rules what so ever. In fact i went into the original article, checked out the references that where made and found alot of synthesis the current editor has made.So when i re-edited the Diet in sikhism section, it breached no rules and clearly added to the dialogue, it was much better than it was in its original form. But the dispute lies with the editor, who does not accept any view which goes against his POV. So i needed maybe you to allow me to make those changes, and address the inbalance so that justice and Both pov can be addressed. Thanks again. I posted the dispute up, in an even shorter form. I didnt do it to challenge you. I have tried to address the matter with the editor, but instead of discussing it he doesnt address the issue at all. If you check the history of DIET in sikhism the main complaint is a one sided article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the additions that you wanted to add and the format that you've placed them in is not really conventional. I suggest you read over the applicable part of [[MOS:]] and try to make your additions wikified for easy reading. In addition, I don't know if the information that you are adding is important, and doesn't give due weight to the article. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fellow Editors. Diet in Sikhism is a controversial issue and there was WP:Consensus on this article some time ago by people knowelagble on this issue. There were several things resolved then:

1. The Sikh Rehat Maryada or Sikh Code of Conductshould be taken as the WP:NPOV to start from. As this has been arrived an consensually by the Sikh Community and the Akal Takht which is the supreme authority on Sikh Matters. This is the so called (orthodox view)
2. Views that deviate from this should have their own pages (unorthodox). See the lead here, and pages for various Sikh sects backed up by a reference 'Some sects of Sikhs—Damdami Taksal, Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Namdharis, Guru Nanak Nishkam Sewak Jatha and the 3HO—believe that a Sikh should be meat-free.'
3. It was agreed to summarise Sikh Intellectual views as has been done here. I personally think this is succinct and to the point and the footnotes allow people to form a view.
4. On quotations from the Guru Granth Sahib, the view was taken to only keep a select few verses. There are a sizeable number of article like this on manipulation of religious texts to manipulate WP:POV

On ONEDHARMA additions there were several problems:

1. WP:Verification
2. WP:OR
3. WP:Reliability

Thanks SH 15:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, SH asked me to comment, so I just wanted to point out a few things. In terms of presenting views fairly, I don't think stringing together translations from different sections of the Gurbani is particularly conducive to a good article, because it's really easy to get into arguments about the context particular lines are written in and how their meaning should be interpreted. Also some of the links you provided, like this one contradict other links, by stating the British tried to remove meat from Sikh diets.

In addition, the section on "Sikh Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Century" is pretty biased as you can probably tell from the last line: [the singh sabha reformers saw themselves in the reflected face of their british colonial masters]. It's also inaccurate, because many of the Tat Khalsa reformers fought against the british during the gurdwara reform movement and later became active in the akali movement. Overall, this section seemed to be unrelated to diet and inaccurate.

just wanted to add my 2 cents--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi SH. Your references are WHOLLY ambiguous. NOT ONE reference you give states a factual position its always a notion of assumption, opinion and possibles and MANY cases of synthesis which YOU have carried out. Almost all your citations contradict each other ref 24, 36, 38, 40 just a few. You have used one Bhai gurdas verse, yet refused my use of three, same source, why?. You have selected three verses from SGGS i have taken 20, how can i be selective? You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in. Not one citation i gave for Sikh reforms breached any rule, You didnt show ONE example of breaches of NPOV, OR, RELIABLY. Even the citation that you use, make it CLEAR, their are dialogues against meat. In the opening introduction you state how sects are against meat, and a temple will NEVER serve meat, yet you refuse to allow me to expand on those issues.The edict of the of singh sabha in 80's is ONE position within Sikhism, whether its official or not is not an issue for wikipedia decide to on or use via you, as a yardstick whether to address the unorthodox sect, nor can you alone decide the integrity or value of it. Both sides need to be addressed.

You said Sikh Reform Movements of the 18th and 19th Century" is pretty biased. That statement was fully backed by FOUR CITATIONS, with ISBN. You rejected because it goes against your orthodox stance.

1.Sikh Nationalism and Identity in a Global Age, By Giorgio Shani, 2008, pg 32,ISBN 978041542190

2.Faith & philosophy of Sikhism, Sardar Harjeet Singh, ISBN 9788178357218

3.World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia, Page 359, 2007,ISBN 978076147313

4.Cultural History of Modern India, By Dilip M. Menon, ISBN 8187358254

My references used.

1.Gobind Singh Mansukhani, Introduction to Sikhism, Delhi: Hemkunt Press, ISBN 81-7010-181-6,

2.Introduction to Sikhism, ISBN 8170101816, Hemkunt Press 2007,

3.The Vegetarian Solution, by Stewart Rose, Healthy Living Publications, |pages=159|isbn=9781570672057

4.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, ISBN 978-8185229171,

5.Bhais gur das which you deleted, because you assumed we didnt understand him, as per your wikipage.

6.Over 6 cited ISBN referenced sources used in the Sikh reform sect. You didnt state one breach!

MANY cases of synthesis which YOU have carried out.Follows:

>He advocated a lifestyle consisting of honest, hard work and humility, focus and remembrance of God and compassion for all of humanity and God's creation all around, with these three key principles taking far greater precedence over one's dietary habits.

Note the statement the editor makes about the Guru is not backed up by any factual citation

>H. S. Singha comments in his book how the Sikh Gurus ate meat.

Again the statement is presented as a matter of fact, when the citation makes it clear its not matter of fact. Actual REF "The practice of the Gurus is uncertain. Guru Nanak seems to have eaten ... Guru Amardas ate only rice and lentils but this abstention cannot be regarded as evidence of vegetarianism, only of simple living".

You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in, which i cant present all here.

Your references make NO FACTUAL STATEMENTS

1.REF 24 I. J. Singh. Sikhs and Sikhism. Delhi: Manohar. ISBN 9788173040580. REF 24 contradicts REF 36 ^ William Francklin in his writing about Mr George Thomas 1805: Stating Sikhs don't touch beef. Contradicts my ^Ref Introduction to Sikhism, ISBN 8170101816, Hemkunt Press 2007.

2.Devinder Singh Chahal, Scientific Interpretation of Gurbani, Again the author makes no FACTUAL statement.

3.Gurbakhsh Singh, The Sikh Faith, Vancouver: Canadian Sikh Study and Teaching Society, ISBN 978-8172051884, Again ref contradicts REF 38

4.J.S. Grewal, Sikh History from Persian Sources: Translations of Major Texts, ISBN 978-8185229171, Contradicts REF 24, REF 40, where you state Nanak ate meat again authors make no factual statement

Also many more statement of fact in the article appear to be statement of opinion and assumption.

The issue of cow protection and tradition in sikhism is addressed by following citation which you refused:

1.Ethnic Tensions in Indian Society: Explanation, Prediction, Monitoring, By P. N. Rastogi, pg 145, ISBN:0333924410176 2.Minorities in India, protection and welfare by Rajendra Pandey, APH Pub. Corp., 1997, ISBN 8170248736. 3.Lok Sabha Secretariat, Govt. of India, — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 02:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think until the above editor can understand WP:AGF this can go now where. Thanks SH 09:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not about good faith, are you stating my changes where not done in good faith? on what merit do i assume your actions are done in good faith? I proved to you how your own references and citation CONTRADICT each other, but you overlook that part, I proved that your allegation that i was biased in sikh reform section was unfounded because i used four well cited references, but again you overlook that part, you already acknloedge in your origninal article that no temple allows meat EVER, sikh sects against meat, i used your own scholars to prove that what you where stating as FACT was mere opinion, assumption and def WAS NOT a matter of fact, you take off my use of three verses Bhai Gurdas, but you use oneverse yourlsef to prove your stance, i select over 20 SGGS verses you select three and you accuse me of being selective, EVEN YOUR OWN citation make it clear their are passages and dialogues against meatn, Bhais Gurdas makes the same dialogue against meat diet, you refer to Nihang singhs yet refuse my section that expands their view on diet, because it goes against your POV. EVEN YOUR OWN CITATIONS never once state a fact but Emphasize it as OPINION, AND ASSUMPTION, which you synthesis to read as FACT!! CAN THE MODS finally acknowledge that this editor OF SIKH HISTORY is wholly anchoring wikipedia to HIS OWN PERSONAL POV.You have made SEVERAL factual statements based on citations that do not support your own FACTUAL synthesis which you have written in. The edict of the of singh sabha in 80's is ONE position within Sikhism, whether its official or not is not an issue for wikipedia decide on or use via you as a yardstick whether to address the unorthodox sect, nor can you alone decide the integrity or value of it. Both sides need to be addressed. You accuse my of breaching NPOV, RELIABILITY, AND OR, and yet you cant give example. I assume you are hiding behind every possible diversion to maintain your inherently biased POV. So your article has SYNTHESIS in it, it breaches NPOV, your own citations contradict each other, you state matters of fact when they are opinion, you selectively choose verses and then you refuse my use because it goes against your stance. YOU are breaching alot of wikirules, which you hide behind. Now either REFUTE ME, or i will make the changes to that section and i will get MOD backing to do that. You cant accuse someone of doing something when in fact ITS YOU THAT IS DOING IT, and then you reply that i should assume your position in GOOD FAITH!!..lol This is not friendship, this is about one guy you, using wikipedia to maintian his biased POV, and then overlooking all the breaches that YOU MADE to attack me personally, to the point of my identity, this is about evidence, supporting argument is not about good faith, when the issue are SO blatantly biased in your POV. Then you claim my statement on sikh reforms, is biased, yet i proved it with citations, whereas YOUR ARTICLE in its current form is WHOLLY BIASED, and you have OFTEN used, synthesis, OR, and stating matters of opinion as fact. You defend your postion of using Bhai gur das than take my verse off, still you have not given a reason. So i repeat again, both sides need to be addressed, it does seem like you dont have ANY integrity on the issue. Also Take a look at your breaches of NPOV, OR, SYNTHESIS, AND RELIABILITY. So if you want others to assume what you do is in good faith, then i show your breaches, synthesis, OR, unrelible sources, contradictory references, are we then just to leave it like that, because you want use to assume your doing it good fiath, then tell me am i doing it in bad faith?..Where i have given verses, citations, references, isbn, am i doing this in bad faith to address your article which is wholly one sided? If so then please explain what good faith mean?..is it overlooking the errors that you have made, or is it about not assuming that you have a agenda to protect your stance? Also you use a citation to support your own POV, yet when i quote the same source and citation that gives supporting argument against your POV, you take it off. How can you use a citation to support you then refuse the SAME CITATION ISBN i use, When it supports another POV? lol.Thanks. OD — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Conduct warning: I, like Whenaxis, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. This dispute is either going to proceed with complete civility or I'm going to close it and it's not going to proceed at all, in accordance with the guidelines of this noticeboard. Stop talking about one another, POV, AGF, and the like and only talk about edits. We discuss edits here, not editors. Onedharma, stop using all capital letters for emphasis, use boldfacing only sparingly, sign your posts, try to be succinct (though I must admit that I, too, struggle with brevity), and don't engage in rants. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I am quite upset by some of the accusations leveled at me. I've always tried my best and tried to be impartial. Like most people I am human and am falable. I will however, try to do better in the future. Thanks SH 16:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

As ONEDHARMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now indef blocked, is there any other editor that would like to advocate for the changes? Hearing no editors to take up the advocacy, this thread will be closed in 24 hours from 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) with no change to the current consensus for the article. Hasteur (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Mr. Belvedere episodes

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. List of Mr. Belvedere episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Before me, that was done in December 2011 before it was reverted back. Now I tried to remove excessive unnecessary amount of stuff and unsourced entries, but Vnisanian2001, the major contributor to this page, disagreed. I don't think article talk page helps, as he could say that I was wrong to remove stuff that is "needless" and "unnecessary". And I don't think third opinion helps. However, I decide to post this because I want to bring this into attention. I could not revert it back to table format, as it would lead to WP:3RR. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs) George Ho (talk · contribs) Vnisanian2001 is the major contributor to this article; that's all. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=List of Mr. Belvedere episodes}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? Inform the user about how to do lists properly. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC) List of Mr. Belvedere episodes discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. From my talk page: --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC) When I initially put together this list four years ago, I was inspired by Gerry A.'s episode guide: http://www.oocities.org/mrbeaverfalls/guide.html Notice how he has all the episodes listed in production order? I wanted to do the same thing. Hell, most, if not all Mr. Belvedere airings in syndication, were in production order. Plus, I prefer using that kind of formatting for the episode guide, than the typical table format. I think it makes the list of each episode much more linear, and easier to understand. Ergo, the only way I think you and I can resolve this dispute is this: To let me keep the formatting, and production order arrangement, and for you to delete any tidbits that you feel may be either too trivial, and/or not enough research. What do you say to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC) Still unproductive to me... I wouldn't consider that source reliable per WP:RS. Let's wait for someone to decide this. --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC) George, if it's of any interest, the production codes can also be found from the U.S. Copyright Office/Library of Congress. Just search Mr. Belvedere in "Keywords", set the range from 1985-1990, "Motion Pictures", and in ascending format. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vnisanian2001 (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2012‎ (UTC) Production codes I don't mind; in fact, I haven't erased them and production dates. I erased only trivia that has no effect on episodes whatsoever, such as guests' credentials on other works, such as Barney Miller. I arranged episodes in airdate order for general researchers... and readers, as well. ...Maybe arranging them in production order is not a bad thing, yet leaving list untabled and and full of intricate details (guests' credentials and trivia that may be either original research or irrelevant for the readers) standing... are general readers interested in those things? Would general readers care for that? --George Ho (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Closing note: Per the instructions of this noticeboard (and of most other forms of dispute resolution), this is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed at the article talk page. I can find no such discussion and it is inappropriate to engage in the initial discussion of what should or should not be done at an article here, as it removes the discussion from the place that other editors would expect to find it. Please discuss this issue at the article talk page and, if you come to an impasse, then consider dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Occupy Wall Street

• Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

A question has arisen in regards to how to use references to support a claim. Here is the disputed prose:

"Income inequality, defined as a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."

The reference is [3] and the text being used to cite the claims is:

In an article in the second issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal entitled “What Liberty Square Means: The Progress of Revolutions,” Rebecca Manski joins the debate from Zuccotti Park, renamed Liberty Square. Manski argues:

Liberty Square is the twenty-first century Liberty Tree. If you want to understand what is happening there, imagine: Under the Liberty Tree that stood in Boston Common, early in the first American Revolution, any and all could come to air their grievances and hammer out solutions collectively, and it was there the promise of American democracy first took root. We are reclaiming a democratic practice in Liberty Square.

Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.

The source used is an editorial opinion piece from the Personal Investment section of Forbes. It is disputed that this can be used as fact and is believed it should be attributed as opinion and not used to claim a straight fact. The references for this opinion being used are linked and show different articles from other publications and I think the belief is they are all based on a CBO report (the primary source) to claim the statement.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Becritical (talk · contribs)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs)
• The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Occupy Wall Street}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Lengthy discussion on talk page until an editor expressed frustration and need for Dispute resolution notice board.[4]

• How do you think we can help?

Please advise the best way to handle the claim to be supported by the source per Wikipedia standards. Goal is for criteria that would pass GA review or at improving the article for a better assement.

Amadscientist (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Opening responses

I can't fully respond to this tonight, but just a few points: the source used is one of several highly reliable sources which can be used to support the claims (or claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data such as different start dates). We have this, for example, from the LA Times:

"The year just past was one in which the stagnation of income and wealth for the great majority of Americans continued — indeed, bit so deep that it helped fuel the Occupy movement taking as its constituency the "99%," ... From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent...A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell...One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too."[5] by Michael Hiltzik.

Similar to the last quote but more encyclopedic and using a reference suggested from the above editor. Income inequality need not be referenced for defintion as long as it is undisputable phrasing. --Amadscientist (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence need not use the word "defined," and I offered to remove it. And no one disputes that the sentence is factual (yes, you heard that right, everyone knows/admits it's fully true). These are undisputed facts. Nothing, however, satisfies the critics at the OWS talk page. In an attempt to keep the info out of the article they have edit warred and even made up various additions to policy, such as that we as editors should research the history of authors and decide for ourselves whether they are qualified, regardless of where they are published. B^e——C_ritical 07:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• As BeCritical points out, with a Forbes source along with the primary source from whence it came (not to mention numerous other statistical refs, though those are claimed to be invalid by our opponents because they don't explicitly say OWS makes use of them), there's no chance of a reasonable challenge coming along. This is a factual statement and not an opinion. Even if the Forbes column could be said to be an "opinion piece," this particular statement is not an opinion, but a fact, and would have been fact checked by the editorial staff. The information is not being challenged and is not in dispute. It is just being held to some unreasonable standard of WP:V's "likely to be challenged" clause, and I see it as downright lawyering. If it could be said that a challenge may come along at some point (as with any data, one can never say it's impossible), this information is not at all likely to be challenged. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
• PS. If you have the patience to take a look through Talk:Occupy Wall Street, you can see for yourself some of the ridiculous straw-grasping arguments that have been attempted in order to keep this info out. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:58, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

There are facts in the staement mixed with opinion and POV terms. It is not really factual.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a question here that I've been wanting more opinions about: it would improve the article to be able to go to the CBO report directly for a few statistics. Numerous secondary sources reference the CBO report and relate its data to the complaints of OWS. Do people think it's acceptable to go directly to the report? B^e——C_ritical 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The CBO report (PDF), summary at CBO site, summary by economist.com. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:23, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)

• WP:NOT#STATS--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

• The crux of it is "claims with very similar content, each source has different ways of parsing the data ". The source may be a reliable one, however it is an editorial. The dispute is that the reference uses undisputed fact (that OWS has an issue with income inequality), mixed with opinion on on the data using POV terms (Actually the prose missuses "wealth", a simplified meaning for "money" with "wealthy", an opinion of great riches). I believe the source to be an opinion piece and not straight journalism and that the information itself is being phrased as fact. "[I]mpoverishment for the rest of the population" is POV and even the word "wealthy" can be seen as opinion. If we are using just the reference supplied, then the claim should be attributed to the author in the reference as it is written. The very claim (or similar) "Income inequality is an issue with OWS" is the undisputable information, and as such does not require referencing. Can we say it is the top issue? I don't know. We would certainly need to reference that in my opinion. Does the CBO report use the above terms? I don't believe so. The claim needs clean up and a reference that is not an editorial peice used to reference a fact, with a claim in an encyclopedic tone that can be supported by the reference. Using the above reference from a portion not included above I can write a very similar claim as fact:

"Income inequality (unequal distribution of income) in the US has increased over the last three decades."

I already responded to this on the talk page, I'll paste my answer here.

The sentence under discussion is,

"Income inequality in the United States, with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits and economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."

Analysis to see if there is any POV, as opposed to presentation of fact done in a way much like the sources:

with a wealthy upper class accruing large profits

This is fact: backed up by the best of RS, the CBO report and secondary sources.

economic stagnation

This is also backed up by highly reliable sources, incomes have declined for most of the population on average, with slight gains for the middle class and less income for the poor.

That's where this comes in:

or impoverishment

Impoverishment is also backed up by fact, as per the Guardian source, about 1/7th of the population— live below the poverty line.

So either economic stagnation or impoverishment. This is simple fact.

Thus, you may be saying that reciting all these indisputable facts together in the same sentence is POV. But since they are facts, since the sources themselves put them all together, and since that is what OWS is upset about, I see nothing POV about it.

In actuality, the sources would paint a starker picture than the sentence discussed above: I left out that the country's economy has been growing, but that income only went to the top. That also needs to be put in. I don't see the POV in the statement. What I do see is some stark and obvious statistics which when you simply state them together in a neutral way sound POV because they lead the reader to an obvious conclusion. But giving the reader the facts is not what Wikipedia means by POV.

Terms:

The terms upper class and economic stagnation are not themselves disputed, they are technical terms and make for better linking. B^e——C_ritical 20:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use an opinion peice to attempt a POV definition of the term "Income Inequality". "wealth" has been changed to "wealthy" which is not defined. The reference is being used in a manner that is disputed as being actual fact. Wikilinks do not justify "Upper class", another undefined term and "economic stagnation" again undefined. Be neutral with wording for facts. Use brevity and don't use puffery.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We as editors get to use our own words, and in this case the definition of "upper class" and "wealthy" meet the data derived from the sources and "economic stagnation" is the same word used in the LA Times source, and means the same thing as "flat incomes." My sentence is a straight rendition of fact, without any POV or puffery, based on highly reliable sources. And just how far are you willing to reach to discredit? An editor can't change the words "wealth at the top" to "wealthy?" Seriously. B^e——C_ritical 21:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue I thought the dispute was already resolved. Or, was that just the half of it? Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's an editor problem, not a problem with any particular text. I recently rewrote the section to meet their demands. But all they do is attack it some more based on made-up policy. You can expect us back here regularly till an admin wises up, but given the low level, that may never happen. B^e——C_ritical 23:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, in that case. We don't work with conduct issues since we can't give out blocks or warnings, only content disputes. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is too low-level for an admin to "get it." Ideally, a neutral admin such as yourself would take the page under his wing and constantly monitor, and take care of conduct issues (like violations of BRD) as they came up and also act as a mediator/third opinion to prevent made-up policy and the like. B^e——C_ritical 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember an Admin already telling you an editor cannot violate WP:BRD. It's not policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis actually isn't an admin, but I agree it would be nice if admins were paying to attention to what goes on there. I'd welcome general additional eyes there either way though. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:32, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my bad :P Well actually more of a mediator/3O is needed. B^e——C_ritical 01:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish I were an admin ;) But, I can get an admin to look at this, if you'd like, it's not too low-key if I explain it to them. Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay cool, maybe they should talk to User:Dreadstar, an admin who has been trying to deal with User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous. B^e——C_ritical 02:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that was simply incorrect. It is not an editor conduct issue. An editor was warned (not me) for edit warring over this issue and discuss it. He made a thread and Dreadstar made a comment about contiuing to discuss. We did untill Becritical stated his frustrations and wish to seek this at Dr or the RS notice boards. It is unfair to categorize this dispute brought here as a conduct issue as I have no such issue I am not edit warring over this. But I am beginning to take GREAT issue with the grouping of editors. If one looks at the other editors talk pages one might see an organizational attempt by two editors. And it aint me. You are right, This should now be taken to Admin Notice board. Also...If Becritcal is correct and he has changed the prose to suit the concerns of other editors where is that statement from him in the discussion? Made up policy? I have just about had enough of these accusations. The Occupy Wall Street talkpage and article are indeed looked at by several administrators. I personaly have been advised by two seperate Admin that they keep an eye on my edits and talkpage discussions because of concern that I would edit war becuase I have in the past. If I am making up policy, I can assure you Dreadstar, Drmies or a handful of other admin would let me know and they may still wish to advise me in areas I may have been mistaken or incorrect, and I welocme it. Always have and always will. IF this is to be an accusation of me let it be clearly spelled out. If this is an accusation of AKA, he has already been warned and this is part of the process of choice by the edior Becritial. He wanted to take it here so I started the discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the user conduct issue is that corrections to the understanding of policy are not absorbed. One example is as I said above, you will not absorb a correction to your claim that Wikipedia editors are responsible for judging whether particular authors, as opposed to publications, are qualified: "And of course we research the authors of the references! If we don't know who is making the claim and we're just using any old person who writes an article, then we're not looking into the reference enough to know if it can be used. We need to know if this is a journalist or a academic or if they are posting opinion or stating fact, if they are staing fact and they themselves are not actualy the journalist but a guest writer and has no journalistic background that amounts to an opinion piece or blog, whether he's an English professor or ecomiics expert."[6] B^e——C_ritical 18:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a conduct issue and we don't discuss those here but at the ANI. Writing an encyclopedia means research dude. The subject, the authors, the context etc...and what's that link supposed to prove?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, writing an encyclopedia also means not doing particular types of research. I would like someone besides myself, Equazcion and Littleolive oil to explain this to you. B^e——C_ritical 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...what does that have to do with researching a subject and being able to justify the use of an author? But it DOES say "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Anyone owant to take a shot at expalining that to the editor.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing gets through, despite multiple editors trying to explain. That's why I say it's a user conduct issue, but one which we need help on, we can't just take it to AN/I. See the problem? B^e——C_ritical 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am an editor that has grown and learned immensely in the 5 years I have been editing. Trust me...things get through. But you are not correct in stating anyone has attempted to correct me on this issue or the policies within. We have been discussing the issue and you seem to be ignoring much and interpreting things in very novel ways. This is done throughout the encyclopedia, but the main point is what is accepted for improvement of the article for a better rating towards Good Article status. I have reviewed and contributed to good articles. I am using these policies and guidelines as set by criteria for assesment of articles. What are you using? I use examples of Good Articles to judge and feature articles when I can to strive towards the interpretations of policy as set by precedence.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do believe you when you say you haven't noticed people trying to correct you on this. I don't think it's malice in any way. B^e——C_ritical 19:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Drive by comment: After reading the contested text and the source (I scanned the rest but ...!) I think the sourcing is not good enough for presenting the statement as factual. It is, at its heart, a reporters view of the situation. I suggest changing the source, or adding something more academic such as this one (which is linked to in the cited article), or, better still, something from a peer reviewed journal. --regentspark (comment) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a good solution, except opponent editors also reject sources for these statements that don't explicitly say OWS makes use of the statistics mentioned. Otherwise this would've been solved a long time ago. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:11, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    • Then I don't see the problem. The connection is well sourced and the the statements are well sourced. Are they arguing that the occupy movement must itself make the connection? --regentspark (comment) 20:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my understanding (for example: [7]). No sources that don't explicitly say this are being accepted to back up this statement, nor other statements like it. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:34, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should be able to use primary sources which our secondary sources point to. But this is the question I asked above. You seem to be saying we can use the primary sources such as the CBO report, if your secondary sources say that the statistics in the primary sources are related to the complaints of OWS. If this is the consensus, it is easy to source everything. But opponents object to doing this. Remember there are multiple secondary sources for the statement, like the LA Times one above. We are not just discussing this one source. B^e——C_ritical 20:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment at [8] doesn't seem right to me. If reliable sources comment on the linkage between OWS and income equality, and provide stats to back up those statements, and provide sources to back up the stats, then we're in the clear. It would be a problem if either (a) we added the statistics to show income inequality, or (b) we made the link between income inequality and OWS but neither seems to be the issue here. That the statistics were not made as part of the protest and therefore cannot be included is an invalid argument. We present material from secondary sources and not what the primary source says (unless it is repeated/recognized/elaborated on by a secondary source). --regentspark (comment) 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's precisely what I've (we've?) been trying to get across. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:53, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran

• Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I updated a paragraph in the article that contained an assertion with a rather unreliable reference that the invasion of Iran was a surprise, and added a reference to the London Gazette publication of General Wavell's Despatch which stated that the Iranian government was warned by a diplomatic note and that there were obvious troop build-ups while acknowledging that the actual attack was a tactical surprise. I also left the original statement about it being a surprise with the reference though I did say that "some have claimed" this. See Diff. User Janus949 has been persistently reverting to the original wording numerous times while accusing me of having a POV and that my reference is "not valid" because it is recorded by "war criminals". My original citation had incorrect syntax that caused it not to display but this has been fixed. I have repeatedly asked him to explain his reasons on the Talk page but he does not state what his objections are, unless it is that in his opinion, the London Gazette is not a reliable source.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dabbler (talk · contribs)
• Janus945 (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have repeatedly attempted to get a discussion going on the Talk page but apart from accusations that my sources are not reliable because they were "recorded by war criminals" and that I have refined my sources (presumably by fixing the syntax) I have had no response.

• How do you think we can help?

I am not sure, at least some advice on how to proceed to resolve this persistent dispute would be nice.

Dabbler (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Clerk's Comment/Template:Cue The discussion is sproadic, at best, on the talk page and there's a slow-mo edit war on the article page. I don't think there's enough of a "dispute" to pass by the prerequisites for the dispute resolution noticeboard. There is no communication whatsoever. I suggest discussing on the talk page (more than sproadicly) and if the dispute is still not resolved, you can try a third opinion or you can re-report to this noticeboard. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation is all the more frustrating because as you say there is no response. The other editor seems to take wikibreaks and leaves the article alone and then comes back and just repeats his accusation and edit. I don't think a third opinion would have any effect on his attitude and actions. I can't discuss with someone who doesn't discuss back and it is sporadic because his actions are sporadic. It has been a monologue on the Talk page because he just ignores the Talk page almost all the time. Dabbler (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that if this is opened, the other editor won't reply since their edits are sproadic. I think a third opinion will work because they can just give a decision and you can use that decision as consensus since its you and that third opinion that is now against the other editor, thus forming a consensus. Quick, fast and if the editor edits it later, you can tell them on their talk page that consensus is against them. Regards, Whenaxis talk (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul Gogarty

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Paul Gogarty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Need to resolve content of this piece through means other than Edit War. The dispute centres around whether references to one incident of media coverage (negative) the former member received should be included at all or, if it is included, whether other pieces of equal media attention should also be included in the interests of balance and fairness. Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? Darepng (talk · contribs) Snappy (talk · contribs) Exiledone (talk · contribs) Although user Darepng has a personal interest in the entry, this should not rule out attempts by the user to ensure that the entry is fair, balanced and/or relevant. This may be a subjective process, certainly, but equally any entry made about an existing or former politician will invariably leave anyone making entries open to accusations of political bias. So one needs to tread carefully and be open to discussion. So far communications have centred around whether a user is a SPA, but there has been no engagement on the key issues of whether one paragraph is relevant and, if it is included, whether others of equal relevance should also be included. Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Paul Gogarty}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Comments have been made in revisions and there have been some interactions on talk pages, but these have not been constructive and the issue ideally needs adjudication from third parties who are not from Ireland and could not be accused of having a political bias one way or the other. How do you think we can help? Listed below are the contents from the most recent entry (which was frozen as listed by administrator for a week as part of a request for mediation and to warn against an edit war): Contents [hide] 1 Early and private life 2 Political career 2.1 Local politics 2.2 Dáil Éireann 2.3 Media Coverage and Controversies 2.4 Call for cut in TDs pay 2.4.1 2009 Swearing incident 2.4.2 Ivor Callely phone expenses investigation 2.4.3 "Babygate" Controversy 2.4.4 Attempts by Taoiseach to appoint new Ministers in January 2011 2.5 Loss of seat 3 After politics 4 References 5 External links This version is the one as amended by user Darepng. In this and an earlier revision, there is a section in the entry entitled "Babygate" Controversy. However earlier revisions did not include 2.4, 2.41. 2.42. 2.44 as listed above. In a nutshell, user Darepng contends that this item is just one of many aspects of the former member's career that attracted media attention. While the 2009 Swearing incident received massive media coverage internationally, other stories over the former Deputy's term of office attracted similar coverage to the "Babygate" one in either print or broadcast media. User Darepng, who amended to the current version at time of resolution request, believes that the "Babygate" Controversy entry should not be left in on its own alongside the 2009 Swearing incident as together these stories suggest that the entire career was one of media controversy rather than including achievements or media coverage about positive as well as negative incidences. There is no dispute over the massively covered Swearing incident paragraph. If neutral observers feel that the "Babygate" entry warrants being included as one of the media highlights of a political career, then they are also asked to adjudicate on whether other stories in relation to Paul Gogarty that received similar media coverage should also be included. Help is being sought not in terms of the background and motivations of the users concerned, but explicitely dealing with the merits of the entries themselves. Darepng (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Paul Gogarty discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ted Cruz

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Within most pages for political representatives, there are external links to sites like ontheissues.org and votesmart.org, and others. I tried to add a link to a site called The Political Guide, which has a page for Ted Cruz that contains more info than the wiki page. I have added a few other links to this site for other representatives, as have other people. A user has removed these links and claimed that the links are spam. I do not believe this is the case as the site is similar in structure to those already present and has more information. The page that I added is here. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Texas/Ted_Cruz/ A user named Dave Dial removed my links and accused me of spamming. This user is very active on the Obama pages and I believe that he made these accusations because he did not like an edit I made to one of those pages. I simply do not see how this site violates the external links policy when ontheissues and others do not. I am fairly new to editing wiki stuff, so if I did something wrong, please tell me. I am on my iPad and can't scroll down further, but the other user Dave Dial. I think that a user named Falcon8765 also removed a link. I have asked them on Dave's talk page to explain this, but haven't got an answer. The ut tick (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? The ut tick (talk · contribs) DD2K (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Not yet. I informed DD2k of this discussion. Equazcion (talk) 04:48, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC) N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Ted Cruz}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? How do you think we can help? Ted Cruz discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I notice you've been adding those links to a lot of pages. Generally this tends to look like an attempt at promotion. Even if it's not, you should see WP:EL for Wikipedia's policies on external links. Most websites, even if they're relevant, are actually not listed at Wikipedia articles. Equazcion (talk) 04:59, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC) Well, I first did notice this problem from an Obama page, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, with the attempt to add this there. It was removed first by Falcon8765 here, and I removed it after this editor reinserted the link without any edit summary or Talk page discussion. But before I removed the link, I went to the website to see what it was and if there were any problems with the addition to the Birther page. The "writeup" was obviously done by a birther with no editorial oversight, making claims cited as factual that were in fact false(such as it is required by the Constitution for any President to be born of two US born citizens on US soil). So I delved further into the site and tried to find it's credentials. It has none and seems to be run by someone who is interested in politics, but with no journalistic or other credentials. So I then looked at the contributions from the editor(The ut tick). All of the edits made by the user were to add a link to the website in question(thepoliticalguideDOTcom). A website that seems to be partially a copy and paste job from other websites(copyright issues) mixed in with the opinions of some unknown person. One copyright issue has been addressed here, and the edit has been oversighted. So, I think what we have here are violations of Spam, conflict of interest and add to the fact that there are copyright problems and all the articles are living persons. Dave Dial (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General Joseph Colton

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. General Joseph Colton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Dispute overview Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? Today, PurpleSteak attempted to move the article General Joseph Colton to both "General Joseph B Colton" [9] (without the period), and to "General Joseph B. Colton" [10] (with the period). It was reverted both times by Favonian, who had reverted many edits by other users trying to perform the same cut and paste move. PurpleSteak has now proposed a move of the article to "General Joseph B. Colton", and has changed this information on other articles and files related to this article [11] [12]. He has also left several messages on my talk page, even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page. In the meantime, he has continued to re-add several POV edits to the article, even after they have been disputed. [13] I also believe that sock puppetry may be involved, since these edits were attempted by other users before PurpleSteak (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster). Users involved Who is involved in the dispute? PurpleSteak (talk · contribs) Fortdj33 (talk · contribs) Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".) Yes. N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=General Joseph Colton}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page. Resolving the dispute Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? As stated above, PurpleSteak has left several messages on my talk page (Edits to Joe Colton and Joseph B. Colton), even though I have tried to come to a consensus with him on the article's talk page (Talk:General Joseph Colton#Requested move and edits). How do you think we can help? I feel that someone other than myself needs to explain the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and coming to a consensus. PurpleSteak thinks that any information he can find online about the subject automatically supports his position. I believe that he is trying to prove a point, and he is going about it the wrong way, but my attempts to reason with him have fallen on deaf ears. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC) General Joseph Colton discussion Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The only original research here is the story fabricated by Fortdj33. I have been trying to reach a consensus with him and he will no cooperate. I have improved the citations to article to include more relevant sources (eg. MTV, ABC News) and he continues to revert any progress to the article. Most of the information provided by him and the G.I. Joe collaboration has been citing user contributed fan fiction websites and the likes. I myself would gladly appreciate it if someone would actually look at the references I have provided versus the references he has provided (which his are little to none). He completely ignores to read and check the references, his disruptive revision needs to be stopped. PurpleSteak (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Stricken as edit by blocked user, see closing note. Clerk's note: This noticeboard is for content disputes, not conduct disputes, and is not for disputes which are currently being worked out in other forums. Though it's worked out on the article talk page, a move request (like a RFC) is such a dispute and disputes about it are not appropriate here. If you believe a user's repeated move requests or general lack of cooperation are inappropriate, then that's a complaint about disruptive editing which should be taken up at one of the conduct dispute resolution forums: WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but not here. On the other hand, if you have particular edits or content which you believe are inappropriate — you both seem to have complaints about the other's sourcing — please point them out in particular here rather than making general references to them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 26, 2012 at 16:00 (UTC) because no specific complaint, other than conduct complaints, has been brought forward. - TransporterMan (TALK) 16:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.