Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 121

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Popcornduff in topic Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much.
Archive 115←Archive 119Archive 120Archive 121Archive 122Archive 123→Archive 125

Talk:Miss Cleo#WP:NPOV issue

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Another editor and I are in disagreement as to whether it is NPOV to identify someone in an article as actually being a "psychic."  I feel that this implies that psychic phenomena are real and is thus taking a side on a controversial issue in violation of WP:NPOV.  I believe a more neutral claim such as "So-and-so describes herself as a psychic" would be more appropriate.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since only one other editor and I are involved, the only steps I've been able to take have been exchanging messages on the article talk page to try to persuade the other editor to be more flexible and adopt some kind of compromise.  But Nyttend has shot down every compromise I've offered.  And Nyttend has offered no compromises.


How do you think we can help?

I think you might be able to help by overseeing our discussion, and helping us see things and ideas that might not have occurred to us.  Also, I think it would be constructive if other editors could be brought into the discussion.


Summary of dispute by Nyttend

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Miss Cleo#WP:NPOV issue discussion

Volunteer Theeditorofallthingswikipedia has recused himself from the discussion after disapproval from the filing party.

Hi, I will be your mediator for this discussion. I will come to the talk page. Thanks, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 00:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC).

User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia, I appreciate your willingness to help out. I must point out, however, that so far I have seen no mediation taking place. So far you have come down solidly on one side of the issue in your first posting on the subject, and when questioned have become a bit bothered. I'm not attacking you; I'm simply suggesting that this is not mediation. Omnedon (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not agree with the way I have handled things but keep in mind thay this is not mediation not because you dont agree with how I handle things but because there has been no discussion about the topic at hand other than my quick synopsis of my findings. And due to the lacking of actual mediation, I have not had a chance to exhibit my methods of mediating between multiple parties, therefore it might be a little premature for you to judge me. If you have continual problems, please come to my talk page to talk it over. And keep in mind that I have no final say or decision on the topic at hand and even if I had a tendentious point of view which I dont (I personally believe that this topic is insular and it wouldnt matter to me if it went either way.), as long as I am not promoting it or treating others without it unfairly, it wouldnt matter. I am going to do my job which is to make sure both sides dont rip each other apart, make suggestions, and managing compromises. Thank you for your concern. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 04:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) TO: Omnedon
This is not mediation? But you have stated that you're the mediator. I'm not sure what you're saying here. As far as suggestions are concerned, the only one I've seen so far is, "Of course you can continue to argue but I dont think that that will be productive in this case as it is so clear cut." When do you plan to begin mediation then? I just want to know what your process is here. Omnedon (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia, for the record, I realize you're quite new to Wikipedia, and I in no way wish to make you feel unwelcome. It may be that you jumped into dispute resolution too quickly, albeit from the best of motives. Keep in mind that dispute resolution involves dealing with parties that disagree, and once it reaches this noticeboard, there is already some degree of conflict. Making a call on which side is right, in your very first post on the subject, is probably not the best way to start. Omnedon (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not be argumentative Omnedon. I meant that there has been no discussion about the topic at hand since I have taken this on so no real mediation has started yet. The two main parties of the case havent even commented yet. Secondly, I just stated a set of facts that pertain to the case and those facts back up one side better than the other, if that came off as biased to you, please take it lightly and wait for the actual mediation to start and dont just critisize me because I am new. Please read this article: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers as I believe that you are currently referencing this one: Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies. You might also consider placing this:
 This user enjoys biting newbies and vandals.
userbox on your user page. Before posting another negative or argumentative comment against me, wait for me to handle the mediation at hand and realize that this is going to go nowhere as I am not dropping the case. Thank You The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 05:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello Theeditorofallthingswikipedia.
      I join Omnedon in expressing disappointment and displeasure with the way you have handled this DRN case so far.  I do not expect you to mediate before there is any actual discussion to mediate.  But neither do I expect you to flagrantly take sides and even make your own arguments in favor of one side.  I'm referring to your statements on Talk:Miss Cleo#WP:NPOV issue such as:
  • "It seems pretty clear cut to me....."
  • "There is no need to put that she claims she is psychic because already a psychic is a person who claims to use powers."
  • "Of course you can continue to argue but I dont [sic] think that that will be productive in this case as it is so clear cut."
You are clearly arguing your own biased opinions; which would be fine if you were a participant rather than the actual moderator.
      Please give me a direct straightforward yes/no answer to this question:  If the moderator of this DRN discussion is clearly demonstrating seriously biased behavior, do I have the right to request that a different moderator be assigned.  If the answer is "yes" then I am making that request as of right now.  If the answer is "no" then you might as well close it right now so it can proceed to RFC.
      I do ask an indulgence of you (and all others involved):  I am often away from my computer for periods of 24 hours or more; so I might not always be able to give prompt replies.  But I definitely will reply to all messages and/or postings that call for a reply.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you always have that right regardless of behavior. I will recuse myself as Im not going to participate in this back and forth anymore. I will mark it back to open. The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC) To: Richard27182

  • Volunteer note - This dispute appears to have a healthy amount of discussion in the article's talk page, and I think is ready for DRN. I'm neither accepting nor declining this case, awaiting dispute summary from Nyttend. Please be clear and concise. Comment on the content and not on the contributor and I'm sure we can find a solution for this issue. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - This case will be closed in 48 hours if the editor Nyttend does not wish to participate (or) does not make his point. @Richard27182: Notifying the filing party. Regards--JAaron95 Talk 16:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jaaron95. Would you be willing to allow a bit more time than 48 hours?
Richard27182 (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (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.

All Along the Watchtower

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I've copyedited material in the above article regarding its relevance to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Music of Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Most of the work consisted of copyediting, not of insertion of new material. User:Doniago deleted both sections I edited claiming lack of citations. The generally accepted thing to do in such cases is tagging with "citation needed" or a similar template, allowing for further edits without destroying potentially useful material. When I challenged the user's conduct he objected and continued completely remove the sections. Deleting relevant, informative and well-phrased content merely for lacking citations (which, by the way, there's more than a handful of in the articles those sections link to) is a lazy, uncooperative act that results in a net loss of good Wikipedia material.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Approaching the user in a civil manner on their talkpage.

How do you think we can help?

Convince the user using your über-Wiki powers that his conduct is unproductive and that there are better ways to deal with such issues, eg. tagging, checking linked articles for citations, approaching editors or their talkpages, or even doing the work yourself (!!!).

Summary of dispute by Doniago

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

All Along the Watchtower discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Rosogolla

Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Article Rosogolla should NOT have deleted immediately before giving an opportunity to the editor to be heard.

Rosogolla is a FORMAL name of the desert, as per dictionary and other scholarly books. The dictionary at www.ovidhan.org rasa (রস) means a liquid solution of anything hard (চিনির রস); a syrup; and, gōllā (গোল্লা) means a globular sweetmeat (রসগোল্লা, কাঁচাগোল্লা), Therefore, making formal name of the desert Rosogolla. The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets of Oxford University Press, describes Rosogolla at page 359. ISBN 978-0-19-931339-6. Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis of Scarecrow Press, Inc also describes Rosogolla at page No. 188. ISBN 978-0-8108-8024-5. Therefore, formal name of Rosogolla is undisputed.

On the other hand, no other Indian dictionaries, except the above, mentions gōllā, it supports that the same desert named as Rasgulla is COLLOQUIAL in nature. Rasgulla is not perfectly spelt as per NOMENCLATURE also, but called by other language speaking Indians. It's Correct name is Rosogolla.

However, I am in Wikipedia to enrich it but not to dampen my efforts than challenging impugned editors frequently. Accordingly, I have created Rosogolla to represent it in its FORMAL name and to avoid impugned disputes with some biased editors or administrators of the article Rasgulla.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The essence of my statements is that the content of the FORMAL named Rosogolla be merged with the colloquial named Rasgulla Thereafter, Rasgulla be renamed in its formal name and the history of the pages merged. Therefore, I needed cooperation to retrieve protected document and wanted to use its content to merge with Rasgulla. Since a fact is a fact and none can deny it, reasonably the formal name shall survive.

How do you think we can help?

To help implement the steps stated above. What you know is an excellent help to understanding and Reasonability. Let an aspiring Wikipedian to contribute, be heard in his endeavour to reflect encyclopedic fact, and if needed by restraining biased and impugned editors or administrators. Or straightly say if I am not welcomed in Wikipedia. Thanks

Summary of dispute by SpacemanSpiff

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I shouldn't be a party to this dispute as that is actually being discussed at Talk:Rasgulla by others and I really have no interest in the topic. My action is almost exactly as what Robert McClenon says, just that the article was already diverging. The page was a redirect earlier and was forked a couple of days back. So I did a reasonable admin action of deleting it and restoring a (temporarily) protected redirect and asked the editor to resolve the discussion at Talk:Rasgulla. As the editor said that they weren't getting consensus in that discussion I suggested that they use DRN for that purpose. —SpacemanSpiff 02:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff
My Comments (for better mutual understanding).
I thank you that finally I am relieved on being heard, - you said what I was asking for is exactly what a WP:POVFORK is.
I thank you again for it was your good-self, who suggested me to use the dispute resolution process if I am unable to resolve issues.
Actually, not your action, but I have disputed the reasonability of an immediate deletion before giving me an opportunity of being heard. Creating Rosogolla might be a duplicate fork, but the name is significant.
Now I shall keep in mind that you said, "Please discuss and arrive at a meaningful solution on the other article," i.e. Rasgulla. And your suggestion to use DRN on the other article.
I would like to thank you again, Sir.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jaaron95:, reg your question below, the OP wants to retreive the content of the now deleted Rosogolla and then merge Rasgulla into it. The problem with that is, part of that is unattributed copy-paste from the history of the existing article. The main problem the OP has is that many of the introductions they made to Rasgulla have been reverted and they used this redirect to introduce that. What they should be focusing on instead is to discuss calmly at Talk:Rasgulla where there are currently three parties to the discussion. I suggested DRN as an avenue if that discussion fails, but there's a bit of impatience here. If anyone wants the forked article restored to a test location, say Talk:Rasgulla/forked content (or an acceptable title) for the purpose of discussion on the talk page, I'm ready to move it there adding the attribution trail. My point here has been there can't be two different content streams for the same subject based on POV. —SpacemanSpiff 12:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by utcursch

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rasgulla is a popular dessert in India. The neighbouring states of West Bengal and Odisha both claim to be its birthplace. The most popular version of the Rasgulla is the white spongy ball, which originated in the state of West Bengal. A cream-ish, softer version originated in Odisha. Both the states claim that their recipe is the original, and that the other state's recipe is an adaptation of their original recipe. Recently, the state of Odisha filed an application to get geographical indication (GI) for its variant, which led to a controversy.

The Bengali pronunciation of the dish's is variously approximated as "Rosogolla", "Rossogolla" or "Roshogolla" in English. The Oriya name is variously transliterated as "Rasagola" or "Rasagolla". Outside these two states, the term "Rasgulla" is widely used (for describing both the varieties) -- in English, this seems to be the most widely used name going by Google Books, Scholar and News results as well as [www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rasgulla Oxford dictionary].

User:Snthakur is a Bengali, and insists that "Rosogolla" is a formal name. (it is not; there is no such thing as a formal name for this dessert: even among Bengalis, there are alternative transliterations including "Rossogolla" and "Roshogolla").

Currently, the Wikipedia article uses the most common name of the dessert ("Rasgulla"). From what I understand, Snthakur wants the Wikipedia article to use the Bengali name "Rosogolla". Given the recent GI controversy, the Odisha editors won't allow that to happen. So, Snthakur created a new article titled "Rosogolla": it had no content that was not already present in the existing article. It was rightly deleted under the criteria WP:A10. utcursch | talk 13:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by regentspark

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have no position on this other than the obvious fact that we shouldn't have two articles on the same subject. The differences are mainly in the spelling and the differences - imo - between the English pronunciation and the Bengali pronunciation. We should probably just go with what English language sources say and then include any 'formal' information as a subsection in the main article. Perhaps the best thing to do is to file a RM request along with sources etc. and see what the community decides - which, apparently, has already been done.. Meanwhile, what we have now is a case (tin?) of 'you say rosogolla and I say rasgulla' :) --regentspark (comment) 03:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Rosogolla discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the talk page. However, the filing party may not understand a feature of Wikipedia. It would appear that the filing party decided that the dessert is called Rosogolla and may have created a copy of the Rasgulla article. It then appears from the filing party's comments that administrator User:SpacemanSpiff speedy-deleted the copy, and instead created a redirect from Rosogolla to Rasgulla, making both names for the same article, and then locked the redirect to prevent a new copy-and-paste. If so, SpacemanSpiff's action was correct. Copy-and-paste is a common mistake made by enthusiastic inexperienced editors, but it is not permitted for two reasons. First, the two articles, while initially identical, will eventually diverge as each is edited. This is undesirable. Second, the copy does not have the revision history of the original. The revision history is important for both practical reasons and because of the way that our copyleft works. So SpacemanSpiff was correct, and the dessert now has both names. There can be a discussion over which name should be primary, but that is hardly important, and can be done on the article talk page. Since this appears to have been a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy, I recommend that this thread be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon (talk)
My Comments (for better mutual understanding)
I do understand and agree most of your interpretations/speculation over the dispute. Specifically, what I cannot agree with them mentioned below.
I cannot really agree with your observation that mentions the filing party decided that the dessert is called Rosogolla and may have created a copy of the Rasgulla article. In fact the Rosogolla concerned was not a copy of the Rasgulla article. However, it was an effort of my considerable research and concrete references on the issue, not a new copy-and-paste. I still can retrieve content of the article concerned that will establish said disagreement of mine, since I have shared it on many of my Facebook pages.
My other disagreement with your understanding/statement on the issue is that the redirection of Rosogolla to Rasgulla article, when Rosogolla itself is a Formal name being redirected to a colloquial name that does not sounds good, but you might have adequate power to ignore this, reasonably or not.
Your statement, "... common mistake made by enthusiastic inexperienced editors.." though understandable but does not fully apply in my case, considering my statement under the title "Have you tried to resolve this previously?" and also my last contributions and relationship with Wikipedia. I have stated, FORMAL named Rosogolla be merged with the colloquial named Rasgulla Thereafter, Rasgulla be renamed in its formal name and the history of the pages merged” – this does not commensurate with your statements.
What is not in your statement is that, I am sure of the possibility that some day the Rosogolla article will make its entry in the way it deserves in Wikipedia but not merely as a redirect. Similar happenings with the article Prabhupāda, biased Administrators forced to redirect it to the article A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, finally the truth prevailed. I am sure it to happen with Rosogolla too.
I believe the power of an administrator or above needs to be judgmental, unbiased.
However, I would like to thank your goodness for the whole purposes.
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note2 - @Snthakur:, Robert has already said you many things. I will suggest you that if you want main article's name should be Rosogolla then you start Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at main article's talk page. If you think you have sources then explain your views there, controversial moves needs consensus of the community. You should read Wikipedia:Requested moves. Second thing you can do is, instead of creating separate article Rosogolla you can add info about Rosogolla in Rasgulla itself. There is section for "Bengali" you can add relevant things in that section discussing it at talk page. There is already mention of term "Rosogolla" in infobox of the article. If nothing is working then you can ask for addition of word "Rosogolla" in intro. For example "Rasgulla also known as Rosogolla is a syrupy dessert popular in the Indian subcontinent." But for this also you have to discuss it at talk page. So, no one is against you, every new user is welcomed on Wikipedia, but we just have to follow some procedures. Thats it. Regards. --Human3015Send WikiLove  02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Human3015|Human3015
My Comments (for better mutual understanding)
I thank you Human3015 for being so humane to me.
Yes, I do agree with you that Robert has already said me many things. However, what helps me most your suggestion to start Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Rasgulla's talk page.
But what am I worried about the possible consensus of the Rasgulla administrators community there in Rasgulla's talk page, I have experienced that some of them are so biased that they might not accept valid acceptable sources, sources those explain my views.
Your rest of the suggestions, adding info about Rosogolla and section for "Bengali," indeed encourage me to rethink.
Ultimately I feel your statements are very humane, that is all that I can say about your statements on the issue.
Your are great Sir,
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: @Snthakur: Rosogolla maybe the original name, but the most common and familiar name should be the name of the article. In this case, Rasgulla. I would like to point you to some Wikipedia's policies in WP:Title. I quote,
So, the commonly used name is Rasgulla (and I can assure you it is!). But, you can give Rosogolla a mention on the lead like (also known as: Rosogolla). Hope this helps. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 10:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@[[User:Jaaron95)
My Comments (for better mutual understanding)
What I disagree to your specific statements are those that Rosogolla is not only original name, it also is the desert’s formal name therefore, most common and familiar name should be Rosogolla and not Rasgulla.
The reasons that almost all the Bengali speaking community, both in West Bengal and Bangladesh use the desert Rosogolla and they spell it exactly as Rosogolla,
Many Non-Bengali speaking communities in India call and spell it as Rasgulla, where very few of them actually use Rosogolla or Rasgulla.
Therefore, considering Rosogolla's comparable actual usage, and the desert’s familiarity with total number of people calling the desert as Rosogolla is much more above the number of people who prefer to call it as Rasgulla. If you do not agree with my statement, please have a little more research for the validity of my statement, you will come to know what is correct.
Therefore, your understanding between the name Rosogolla and Rasgulla does not seem to be correct.
Thanks
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Snthakur, seems like you are not ready to agree with any of us. If I could think of a solution, it's this... Are you willing to have a community input (Inputs from other editors in Wikipedia) on your opinion of moving Rasgulla to Rosogolla? If yes, I can help you with the process. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 11:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jaaron95
Sir,
I have agreed with SpacemanSpiff, User:Human3015 and also agreed with the fact. I will gain nothing in my endeavour to establish the name Rosogolla as formal name of the desert but I am trying to reflect the factual truth not only for my satisfaction but also to enhance the quality of Wikipedia.
Yes, it is fine to have a community input on the issue if the process really tries to address the the following.
The essence of my statements is that the content of the FORMAL named Rosogolla be merged with the colloquial named Rasgulla Thereafter, Rasgulla be renamed in its formal name and the history of the pages merged. Therefore, I needed cooperation to retrieve protected document and wanted to use its content to merge with Rasgulla. Since a fact is a fact and none can deny it, reasonably the formal name shall survive.
Thanks & regards
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Snthakur: I don't think I can get what you mean by this — content of the FORMAL named Rosogolla be merged with the colloquial named Rasgulla. Content in Rosogolla? I don't see any content in Rosogolla (except the redirect)? You mean the content that was deleted by SpacemanSpiff? Yes, the history of the former page will be merged to the destination page. Also I don't get what you mean by this — I needed cooperation to retrieve protected document and wanted to use its content to merge with Rasgulla. What protected document do you want to retrieve? Please be clear and concise and we'll conclude this. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 11:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jaaron95
Sir,
I apologize for being so complicated. I beg your pardon.
(1) In simple, I said "Yes" to your previous question, "Are you willing to have a community input (Inputs from other editors in Wikipedia) on your opinion of moving Rasgulla to Rosogolla?" it is fine to have a community input on the issue. My simple answer to your previous question is “Yes”
(2) Actually, the content of Rosogolla has been deleted or appears to be protected, and later redetected, but that does not makes any difference, if needed, I can easily retrieve its content from Facebook pages where I have shared the article son after I created it. – No issue, you may now ignore this matter.
(3) It is very nice to know that the former page (I believe it Rosogolla) will be merged to the destination page. No issue.
(4) Regarding, “I needed cooperation to retrieve protected document and wanted to use its content to merge with Rasgulla” – No issue, Please ignore it.
Please conclude as per item (1) and (3) above; please feel free to ignore items (2) and (4) above.
I thank you sir.
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: Snthakur, the solution to the issue is as follows;
  1. Request a page move on the talk page of the concerned article. We cannot have two articles on the same subject.
  2. It may succeed or it may not. In any case, for your content to be restored, you can ask the deleting admin SpacemanSpiff. (P.S. The content won't be restored to the namespace rather, to your sandbox or pages like this Talk:Rasgulla/forked content).
  3. After which you can manually add the contents to the article. If someone opposes, discuss with them in the article's talk page.
Hope that helps. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 12:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


@User:Jaaron95
Sir,
Your suggestions (1) to (3) above noted.
Thanks
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@Snthakur: I'll help you with making a request on the page move. But point 3 suggests you misunderstood me. What I meant was this — If community input is to move the page to Rosogolla, then the page Rasgulla will be moved to Raosogolla along with it's history, which is this and not the content you added to Rosogolla. You've got to add them manually. On a lighter note, there are no 'Sirs' here. Regards--☮JAaron95 Talk 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jaaron95
Sir,
The point 3, above mentioned by you, fully understood and reasonably agreed, I can add the relevant content manually after the move in question.
Also, I have composed the Page Move Request,
To whom it may concern:
Sir/s
As per the following recommendation, available at the page URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rosogolla_discussion I am requesting a page move of the article Rasgulla to the article page Rosogolla, the reasons for this already discussed in the above said page URL.
Thanks a lot.
Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note:   Done. I've added a template for the requested move on the talk page for community input. That settles the issue I guess. After the discussion ends (in either way), further issues may be discussed in the article's talk page and if unsettled, may be brought here. This case will be closed in 24 hours (general close) if no objection arises. Thanks all of you for participating in this discussion. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 13:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jaaron95

I thank your goodness for being so Judicious, Sir !

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@ToWhomItMayConcern

rasa+gōllā = রস+গোল্লা (Rosogolla) [1] - as per Bengali Language dictionaries only, (the Bengalies tend to pronounce the dental sa as palatal sha and the sound a as o). However, no other languages Indian dictionaries mention the word gōllā meaning a globular sweetmeat (রসগোল্লা, কাঁচাগোল্লা).

References

  1. ^ Kunal Chakrabarti, Shubhra Chakrabarti (22 August 2013). Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis. Scarecrow Press, Inc. pp. xiv–. ISBN 978-0-8108-8024-5.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@ToWhomItMayConcern (2)

Two Articles for the same sweet?

(1) It seems the editors and administrators, involving this article Rasgulla, are not interested to address the item no 3 in Talk:Rasgulla#Khiramohana so as to resolve the name of the article Rasgulla as original and formal and establish Rasgulla Wikipedia worthy. (note1).

(2) (i) Admittedly, the Khira Mohana is the predecessor of Rasgulla, so the question is, why not a request might be made for the article Rasgulla to rename in its original & historical name Khira Mohana or, Pahala rasgulla? (note2). (Refer next item.)

(ii) The Item 1.1 of the article Rasgulla#History mentions, “According to historians of Odisha, the Rasgulla originated in Puri, as Khira Mohana, which later evolved into the Pahala rasgulla." Bishwabijoy, Mitra (6 July 2015). "Who invented the rasgulla?". Times of India. Retrieved 2 August 2015.. The concerned news also mentions, "In Odisha, they claim equally vehemently that the Rasgulla was invented there (Odisha) and has been offered to Lord Jagannath for centuries. So how could it possibly belong to Bengal (West Bengal)?" Therefore, I need to clear this question that, if Khira Mohana evolved into the Pahala rasgulla how is it possible Khira Mohana became Rasgulla, before I raise a request for renaming Rasgulla in its original & historical name, preferably Khira Mohana or, Pahala rasgulla. (note3).

(iv) According to above observation, the article Rasgulla tries to reflect that Khira Mohana became Rasgulla through another naming Pahala rasgulla. So it will reasonably be interpreted that Khira Mohana, Pahala rasgulla and Rasgulla all are different names of the same sweet. (nore4).

(v) As per the statement of utcursch | talk, Rasgulla editor and administrator of the article Rasgulla , it made clear in the page Talk:Rasgulla#Survey that the Odiyas (who claim that their state is the dessert's birthplace) have other spellings for the name, including "rasagolla", "rassogolla", and "rasagola." (note5)

Therefore, it will reasonably be interpreted that not only Khira Mohana, Pahala rasgulla and Rasgulla are different names of the same sweet (refer above item iv) , but "rasagolla", "rassogolla", "rasagola, Khira Mohana, Pahala rasgulla and Rasgulla - all are different names of the same sweet (nore6).

(3) I am confused, and there is a question in my mind about neutrality of the administrator and editors of the article Rasgulla that the article Rosogolla was deleted, (refer Talk:Rosogolla), by the administrator SpacemanSpiff and supported by the administrator editor utcursch | talk of the article Rasgulla on the grounds “two article for the same desert cannot be there in Wikipedia here, However, said deleting administrator intentionally ignored to keep the article Khira Mohana even when the article [[Rusgulla} establishes itself for the same sweet. Is not it a biased act of the persons concerned?

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2015 (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.

Patrick Hennessy (painter)

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A tag appeared some days ago(not certain what day)asking me to broaden the leader section of the article which at the time just had the artists name and dates of birth and death. I modified the whole page breaking it down into time segments so the reader could pick out different times of the artists life without having to read through the whole article. I carefully selected a sentence for the leader that had all the relevant information in it for the reader to know what this article was about. Unfortunately another editor still refused to remove the tag even though I explained why there was no need to extent that sentence into four sentences which I strongly feel would put the article out of balance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

When the tag appeared I immediately took steps to make the page easier to read by breaking the narrative up into "time" segments. I then selected a very precise sentence that encapsulated the essence of what this article was about.

How do you think we can help?

All I want is for the tag to be removed as the article is just about complete(after a lot of work)

Summary of dispute by ww2censor

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Patrick Hennessy(painter) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There does not seem to be any dispute. The filing party has not listed any other parties, and there has been no discussion on the talk page. The filing party can just ask on the talk page whether other editors agree to removal of the tag. I am not declining this case, but am recommending that it be declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (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.

Salafi movement

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I made some considerable changes to the article entitled Salafi movement, which consisted of a lot of dogmatic and biased materials, which violated Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I justified my edits with legitimate sources. Certain users, however, have tried several times to remove my sourced content and have strongly disapproved of my changes, as seen here in this discussion [1]. One user even went as far as to accuse me of making posts of which I have no connection to, nor do I know the user who made those posts [2]. There have also been a lot of personal attacks aimed at me.

I believe that the discussion has gone way out of hand and is now very unproductive.

The culmination of my changes amounts to the following edit [3]. This is how I would like to see the lede and history sections of the article as.

The previous version was very highly problematic, as it does not take into consideration the complexities involved in describing and defining the term "Salafism" and the "Salafi movement." It also states in definitive terms that "The doctrine can be summed up as taking "a fundamentalist approach to Islam, emulating the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers—al-salaf al-salih, the 'pious forefathers'...They reject religious innovation, or bida, and support the implementation of sharia (Islamic law)."", which is not right according to Sunni critics of Salafism. I therefore wanted to add a disclaimer stating that there are opponents who believe that Salafis do not fulfill this description.

The history section also consisted of materials that were irrelevant. For example, Ahmad bin Hanbal never started a "movement". To include the following content [4] in the history section (as seen here [5]) is irrelevant to the actual "Salafi movement" and is better suited in a different section entitled "Inspiration for the Movement." To claim Ahmad Bin Hanbal had anything to do with the history of the Salafi movement is like claiming that Benjamin Franklin or George Washington has something to do with the modern Tea Party movement. It is a more recent movement that may take inspiration from certain historical figures, but the actual historical figure does not have anything to do with the movement. Ahmad bin Hanbal is also a figure revered by Sufis by the way. Xtremedood (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to ignore personal attacks aimed at me and have focused on the actual content of the article. I have talked extensively on the talk page of the article and have tried to justify my edits by including a lot of quotations in the sources themselves, which may be seen in my most recent edit of the article, here [6]. Xtremedood (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?

I would like a more neutral setting to discuss the dispute. I would like for a capable moderator to work to bolster effective dialogue and discussion on the matters. I would also like for the moderator involved to focus on the actual sources and the content of the article. Xtremedood (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Toddy1

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This is forum shopping - raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages in the hope of finding one where Xtremedood gets the answer he/she wants.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Iryna Harpy

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by DeCausa

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Salafi movement

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Marjoram Curry

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Last night I spent 3 hours adding a long comment (with references, probably unread) about the illegal activities of the Belgian socialist party and minutes later the whole section was deleted by a certain "Asram", a Guadeloupe Frenchman (the type of person who is most probably a client of the socialist party... in France) on the ground that it was "vandalism" (although I did not destroy nor damage anything, the comment is a bit long, that's all) and "defamation".

Minutes later another French (and this is a Belgian issue!) administrator, "Hégésippe Cormier" blocked my account from editing more content, for an indefinite duration, without any warning - which is most probably AGAINST THE RULES.

What's worse, she also blocks me from discussing with ANYONE in the French section of Wikipedia: she blocks me from emailing to administrators and from discussing the issue in my talk page.

So I have not received any warning. And I am blocked from contacting anyone over there.

I made this long comment between midnight and 3 a.m. Belgian time. When I woke up at 6, I wanted to correct a few things, because I feared that this dangerous mafia might find my IP address even though I have an account, since they have accomplices everywhere.

The good news is that since Hégésippe Cormier has also hidden my comment in the history of the page (called "Parti Socialiste (Belgique)"), the said mafia will not get my IP address (unless Asram and Hégésippe Cormier are accomplices).

My intention was only to denounce a mafia.

In fact I was even taking personal risks in order to save Belgium from this mafia.

What people have to know is that they are psychopaths, highly manipulative and have infiltrated the Belgian justice in order not to go to prison.

Belgium is a dictature because of them.

If denouncing a dictature is "vandalism and defamation", then Wikipedia should close down.

A little help from Wikipedia would help democracy in this world.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As explained, I cannot do anything: Hégésippe Cormier blocked me from emailing to other administrators, from editing French Wikipedia pages including talk pages and from creating another account.

How do you think we can help?

If you get in touch with the boss of the French part of Wikipedia and let him or her know that obviously the procedure has not been followed since I have received no warning and that the violence of the measure is probably of political nature, what's worse from people who do not understand the Belgian problem since they are French, and after 3 hours of sleep I was about to make some changes if only for my own safety anyway, so this is all exaggerated. Thank you very much.

Summary of dispute by Asram

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Hégésippe Cormier

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Marjoram Curry discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CableFree

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This page seem to be getting a lot of attention from User:Y, and recently the page has been deleted again with no explanation of how to improve. It just seems that Y has taken quite a disliking to this page and the user and deleted (as well as the user stephenpatrick). I feel that Y is not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia and has a personal vendetta or alike -

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On the talk page, when previously deleted, spoken to other users to get this page back online and doing as they requested such as references, notability etc as well as other feedback on board.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps the page being validated by another user and also reminding Y of why Wikipedia exists and why pages can stay regardless of whether Y is in favour of the topic or not -

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

CableFree discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Kids Company#Figures_from_Kids_Company

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

My entry on the Talk page @ Selector99 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) refers and from thereon in we seem to have reached an impasse. The matter revolves reliable sources and I argue that a research study from the London School of Economics in 2013 is RS. Another editor argues that the source's reliability is tainted as recent media reports point out the study was paid for by the organisation it was about. The LSE have defended their impartiality saying:

"University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research,” “This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".

The other editor argues against a specific, unqualified citation from the study that I would like to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I first took the disagreement here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Kids_Company_-_Reliable_source and then here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kids_Company_-_Reliable_source

How do you think we can help?

Comment on the LSE being RS. Is it tainted because of 'suggestions' by media reports or does it remain RS as defended by the LSE themselves? Thanks

Summary of dispute by DeCausa

The issue has, in fact, moved away from the reliability of the LSE report. It's really now a difference in how the report is to be used in the article. Selector99 wants to add this text which would be in addition to existing text, earlier in the article, added by a third editor here. I, on the other hand, instead want to replace the latter edit with the text included in this talk page post. My objections to Selector99's edit are that they are unnecessary and add nothing. The real notability of the LSE report, and what needs to be covered in the article, is that (a) Kids Company failed to build up evidence of the efficacy of its work (b) the only real example of them doing that is the LSE report - and that gave a "glowing" review of them which they often cited (c) that report has now been criticised by The Telegraph, The Times Higher Education magazine and implicitly by the BBC as being insufficiently robust and overly sympathetic. The basis of the report's notability is reflected in this BBC piece, which hyperlinks to the report under the words "the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's work". In other words, the only thing of real note in the report is to quote it saying what a great job Kids Company did, but noting the subsequent criticism of the report. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kids Company#Figures_from_Kids_Company discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - I have violated this rule also, but there is a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard. Is the discussion at RSN being closed to bring it here, or will these discussions go on in parallel? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: (edit conflict) This issue has had good good amount of discussion in the article's talk page and I believe is ready for DRN. Before opening this case, I would want the involved editors to clarify me something. Selector99's (filer), dispute summary portrays the issue as whether LSE is a Reliable Source or not. And DeCausa's summary portrays the issue in another way. If I were to go by Selector99's summary, I will have to close this discussion and point you to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (at the existing discussion). But if Selector99 agrees on Decausa's dispute summary i.e., disagrees on what he has proposed, this dispute can be discussed in this noticeboard (closing the existing case in RSN). What' your point Selector? Kindly comment on the content and not on the contributor. Also, be concise and civil. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There is already a discussion at RSN. Should it be continued and this discussion closed, or should it be closed and this discussion continued? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: That discussion has been answered by two editors and that pretty much sums up if LSE is a RS or not. I think it's worth waiting for what the parties have to say regarding my question. If they think dispute is on RS, then this discussion can be closed. If they have concluded on the RS issue, then RSN case maybe closed. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 14:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You can close this. I've taken the article of my watchlist and won't be editing it anymore. I've had enough of struggling with new editors about the basics. DeCausa (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Freeze Out_%28game_show%29

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am trying to give this article a NPOV by removing a critical reception section that gives it a negative bias and is not in keeping with other gameshow articles and WP:CRITICISM recommends against having such a section anyway. Launchballer keeps restoring this section.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion in talk

How do you think we can help?

Establish a consensus that is hopefully in keeping with wikipedia policy.

Summary of dispute by Launchballer

I believe that this article - and indeed, any game show article - should include a critical reception section per WP:NPV, one of our five pillars, which states that "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" in its nutshell. I will saw that Scowie has failed to include the word 'partially' in his summary - the first version he deleted was this, while the version at time of writing is substantially smaller.--Launchballer 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon

This appears to be a dispute about whether to add criticism of the game show to the article. I have named as a party here because a third opinion was requested as to whether to include the criticisms. I offered the opinion that, if the criticism had been published in a reliable source, it should be included, but very briefly. I don't have a strongly held opinion on the subject. It appears that the other two editors have strong opinions on the subject, so that it appears to be appropriate for moderated discussion, and I suggest that another volunteer open it. I reserve the right to comment, as a party. The filing party needs to notify the other editor of this request. The template {{subst:DRN-notice}} is used for the purpose. I won't require notification. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:WikiProject Television have guidelines on criticism sections? It appears that it doesn't, but I only scanned and didn't read in detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Freeze Out_%28game_show%29 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@Launchballer:, you are quoting WP:NPV, not our policy on personal attacks which has nothing to do with this.--Atlan (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A thousand pardons - fixed.--Launchballer 20:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Order of a polynomial#Disambiguating

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:D.Lazard added redundant and factually incorrect additions to the article, which I've removed. He proceeded to start an edit war while refusing to listen to the arguments, which culminated in reverting back to his personal version, and adding a vindictive and petty "multiple issues" notice accusing the article of being original research, not meeting wikipedia's guidelines, being factually incorrect, and relying on a single source. These latest complains, while contradictory and absurd, indicate that [User:D.Lazard]] decided to go on a petty rampage instead of understanding the problem and working to fix it.

Consequently, I believe it's better to open a dispute resolution request instead of letting this petty edit war escalate

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I followed the first edit with a reply in the article's talk page informing of the reversion and explaining why the edit done by User:D.Lazard was reverted. To this, User:D.Lazard reintroduced his changes without providing any reason. Subsequently, I've reverted the article back to the previous version, informing User:D.Lazard through the edit log that he needed to read the talk page. This was followed by User:D.Lazard petty actions mentioned in the dispute overview section.

How do you think we can help?

A knowledgeable third-party would benefit the discussion by bringing an impartial and level-headed contribution to the discussion, thus bringing it back to the rational level.

Summary of dispute by

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Order of a polynomial#Disambiguating discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Murder of_Anni_Dewani

Latest comment: 9 years ago53 comments7 people in discussion
  – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I believe there are problems with this "Murder of Anni Dewani" article. One is giving prominent placement and using the "Panorama" program as a source. It is biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately very unreliable.

In pushing its agenda, it makes suggestions and insinuations that were far-fetched to begin with, and which have now, subsequent to the production of the program, been definitively debunked. It also resorts to using doctored audio and video clips. This is to name but a couple of the otherwise myriad of dubious moments and methods on display in the program.

As it is an unreliable source, I think the most efficient solution is to remove the section on the Panorama program from the article. Others apparently do not want it removed. Therein lies the dispute.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I was planning to use the "Third Opinion" page. Which I read was "simple and easy" to use. I didn't find it so. I stumbled on there on how to link to the location of the discussion.

How do you think we can help?

You could remove the offending section, or explain to me why it's not obvious it should be. I'm surprised someone is insistent that a source which includes definitely debunked claims/suggestions/assertions remains as part of the article. But that is just my instinctive reaction, and I otherwise have little experience or understanding of how Wikipedia works.

Summary of dispute by BabbaQ

From my point of view this is a matter of sourcing, and the fact that the user is inclined to remove the information about Panorama. And in my opinion we do not censor information simply because one user find the info to be not of his/hers liking. One can think however they want about Panorama as a show but we do not censor information that is simply telling about a show that broadcast a show on a crime case. Panorama presented the case and evidence as they were and very factual, and the criticism against the show from Dewani family members and some personal Wordpress site has also been presented in the article now. Lane99 has shown little interest in discussing the matter and he has been warned of edit warring so I think Dispute resolution is the best way to handle this. I just do not see the information about Panorama being a major issue as per above noted points. Lane99 main reasoning seems to be "I want it removed, so why dont you all just listen and remove it". It is not really a reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(Please also note Lane99 continues not to sign his comments even after being instructed on how to do so on his talk page, he is in my opinion quite unwilling to listen).--BabbaQ (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Nick Cooper

As I noted on the Talk page, there are a number of statutory and regulatory mechanisms by which television programmes broadcast in the UK can be challenged in light of perceived bias, misrepresentation, or inaccuracy. As far as I am aware, the BBC Panorama programmes Lane99 objects to have not been so challenged. Nor am I aware of them being subject to challenge through the BBC's own internal procedures. We are, of course, talking abut a serious journalist investigation by a internationally renowned and respected national broadcaster, not some cheap exploitative hatchet job on an obscure local cable channel.

Lane99's motivation seems to be nothing more than nit-picking from someone who disagrees vociferously (as they have on multiple other forums, e.g. here, here, here, and here) with the view put forward by the programmes in question, and subsequently and separately accepted by the SA judicial system, i.e that there is no proven case against Shrien Dewani. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of_Anni_Dewani discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. One of the issues appears to be whether a particular source is biased. This noticeboard is a reasonable place to discuss that issue, or other issues about the article. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it does appear to be ready for discussion. The filing party should have notified the other party, but I have done that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

First round of statements

I am willing to open this issue for moderated discussion. I can see that one of the issues is a claim that one of the sources is biased and has an agenda. Since that source is a BBC (a highly respected medium) program, I would suggest that the burden is to show bias, rather than to show neutrality. I would suggest that a thread be opened on that subject at the reliable source noticeboard and that discussion here continue in parallel with discussion there. Are there any other issues about this article that need discussing? I don't claim to know anything about this murder except what is said by the parties. I will state a few ground rules. First, every editor is expected to check this noticeboard every 48 hours. If there is an RSN thread, every editor is expected to check it every 48 hours. I will check at least every 24 hours. Please do not edit the article itself while the article is being discussed here. Also, please discuss the article here; any discussion at the article talk page may be ignored. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not respond to individual editors; address all comments to everyone. Are there any issues besides bias? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

From my personal point of view it is up to users to show what is biased about the Panorama section of the article. Otherwise it is a clear fact that the BBC sources are from a highly respected medium. Also Panorama itself is produced by the BBC so also a respected medium. I think this should be a pretty short discussion as per the obvious facts of this particular discussion. Other than the "biased situation" I do not see any issues that has been raised. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I know a reasonable amount about the murder of Anni Hindocha (Dewani), and I have seen the Panorama program. It appears some other contributors here have not. The Panorama program is: 1) biased and disingenuous, 2) non-neutral point of view, 3) definitively debunked and disproven in areas Panorama claimed were vital to the crux of the murder case. For these reasons I think it's most efficient, rather than to somehow try to redeem or balance it by including counterpoints in the article on Anni's murder, to instead just remove the Panorama section. It's not difficult to write a extensive critique exposing the lack of balance and falsehoods in the program. And it's already been done (in excruciating detail) here: https://panoramabusted.wordpress.com. Note: PanoramaBusted is, in its own way, no less biased and agenda-driven than the Panorama program itself, and there are some deficiencies in the logic and reasoning it offers. However it's a measure of just how extremely biased is the Panorama program that, despite PanoramaBusted's shortcomings, it still manages to prove its point. Incidentally, though I completely agree with PanoramaBusted's ultimate conclusion, I came to my own opinion of Panorama's bias prior to ever reading PanoramaBusted.
1. As I've said, it's not difficult to make the case for Panorama's bias. Per Robert's comment above, he seems to be saying I should make the case simultaneously here and at the reliable sources noticeboard. I am a novice Wikipedia contributor, and don't understand why I would be doing this in both places, but I will see if I can figure out how to open a thread at RSN, if it hasn't already been done.
2. I do have other issues with the Murder of Anni Dewani article. But I don't know at this moment how to express them in terms that would make them valid concerns according to Wikipedia's standards. Mainly because I am not fully versed on what those standards are.Lane99 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a thread at the reliable source noticeboard. Discussion about Panorama can be deferred here to wait for comments there. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the hysterical tone of "Panorama Busted" says everything we know about the rabid pro-guilt stance of the website. I would note Lane99's attempt to discredit other editors by suggesting that they have not seen the programmes in question. I have seen both as a matter of fact, and actually living in the country where Panorama is produced, am more than aware of its long-standing reputation as a highly-regarded current affairs programmes with a history of investigating actual or potential miscarriages of justice. Lane99 - like the anonymous creators of "Panorama Busted" - would have us believe that somehow Panorama unaccountably threw away its own rulebook when it came to the Dewani case. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is that Panorama isnt a "cable tv sensationalistic nonsense show" it is a highly regarded documentary programme that has been aired since 1953 on the BBC and if anything the programme has been highly regarded for several of its reports. So any accusation of the programme being biased is per facts just an POV by anyone claiming it is biased. I have not seen any sources or proof that the show has becomed debunked and disproven, if anything there has been no credible report on that matter what so ever. This Wordpress source presented and added to the article seems to be a not credible source if any, it is written by a private person with a strong POV opinion about the case. It is not credible and should be removed from the article along with the material it sources. So far I see no indication at all as to Panorama being biased. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Why have this discussion open if the other user involved is having a discussion about this at the reliable source noticeboard with users unrelated to this particular dispute. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On hold here

Since the only clearly stated issue is reliability of the source, I am for now transferring the discussion of this case to the reliable sources noticeboard. It does have other users who are familiar with the reliability of sources. When there is a conclusion from RSN about the reliability of the Panorama piece, or whether it is clear that that discussion has failed, I will reopen this case. For now, it seems more suitable to a specialized noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Reopening

The discussion at RSN has not succeeded, because there is the same disagreement there as here. I see very little likelihood that we will agree on whether the 2013 Panorama documentary was biased. The only way that we can decide how to deal with it is a Request for Comments. Are there any other questions? Lane99 states vaguely that they have other concerns but don't know how to express them in Wikipedia terms. If they can state those concerns in general terms, I can try to help see if they can be formulated in Wikipedia terms. Otherwise we will have an RFC on the 2013 Panorama documentary. Is the question whether the 2013 Panorama documentary is considered biased and driven by an agenda? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The only claims of bias seem to come from those who do not agree with the findings of one particular Panorama documentary. The gist of the "its biased" argument seems to be that Panorama should not have included exculpatory facts that shone light on the truth and questioned the narrative being propagated by other media outlets and pro-guilt fringe groups. Is that bias? Or is it simply a broadcaster having the courage of its convictions? The only bias and agenda apparent in that documentary is a bias and agenda toward discerning the truth of what happened to Anni Dewani. As it happens, the documentary was thoroughly vindicated by the court's judgement in the Dewani matter and it proved to be a very solid piece of investigative journalism work. Lane99 has articulated a few very tenuous points which have been dismantled by Nick Cooper. What is left to say? If Lane99 cannot demonstrate bias then surely the dispute is over and we move on? Dewanifacts (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The only reasoning I have heard so far is "I dont like it". We have Panorama on one side, a documentary programme that has aired on BBC since 1953 and is an institution in British TV. And numerous reliable sources over the years of that fact. On the other side we seem to have a Wordpress source created by someone with an POV opinion and a source from the Dewanis disagreeing with Panorama. And that is their full rights, but that does not equal Panorama being biased or untrue. Ofcourse the Dewanis will disagree with a documentary pointing towards the alleged perp being not guilty. Anyway, I have seen no strong reasonings for the Panorama section to be removed beyond the "I dont like it, so just get it removed", but strong reasonings for the "Panorama disagreement" section to be removed as it is based on the Wordpress sources which is not reliable.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I think you find it hard to formulate this because there are no credible facts supporting Panorama to be biased etc. So I dont see how this going any further will help. We have a notion by Lane99 that Panorama is biased, but it seem to be a personal opinion without any strong stand in reality. We have as I stated above the Panorama show an institution in british television, and reliable sources for its many great investigative documentaries, and on the other side we have a highly questionable Wordpress source. I just dont see how further discussions would change that fact. And is the main purpose of this entire discussion to in the end get the Panorama section removed simply because Lane99 insists it should. Then something is wrong. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
BabbaQ, I think you mean the Hindocha family objected to the Panorama programme, not the Dewanis. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ did you even read my comment? I most certainly am not on the side of Lane99 and I have argued strongly that I agree with you that Panorama isn't in any way biased. You are correct. That panoramabusted wordpress blog is not reliable and contains mostly speculative erroneous misinformation. Note that I have nothing to do with the Dewanis. I represent an independant blog (Dewanifacts) dedicated to exposing the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Another effort by moderator

As I have noted above, we clearly have one editor who thinks that the 2013 Panorama documentary is biased and driven by an agenda, and multiple editors who say that Panorama is a reliable source and a very respected British documentary series. (As an American, I infer that the closest American equivalent is Sixty Minutes.) It is possible for a particular documentary by a documentary series to be biased. We clearly are not about to get agreement at this noticeboard, so my approach, as I have said, will be to get the consensus of the Wikipedia community by a Request for Comments. What I will do at this point is to ask each editor to submit their draft version of how they want the RFC worded, and I will have the final say as to what version or neutral compromise version of the RFC is posted. Please provide your draft versions of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to add this remark at this time. If not, and someone tells me the correct place, I'll have a better idea in the future. Now, for the record, it is not only me, but multiple other editors who also recognize the Panorama episodes on Anni's murder are biased. The 2012 noticeably so. The 2013 episode grotesquely so. The "Murder of Anni" talk page shows other editors have been attempting a good faith discussion on this for upwards of two years and have been met will little response apart from derisive handwaving. //Meanwhile, we're supposed to provide a draft of the RFC by adding said draft to the bottom of THIS page, is that correct?Lane99 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Robert, I think the core fact to bear in mind is that the programme in question supported the idea that Shrien Dewani did not arrange the murder of his wife, at a time when the South African press was virtually unanimous in its opinion that he did, while the UK press was at best ambivalent. As it turned out, Shrien Dewani had his day/s in court, and the prosecution's case was not proven. As Dewanifacts has pointed out, much of the detail in the 2013 programme that Lane99 specifically objects to was in fact accepted by the court in Shrien Dewani's favour.
Lane99's chief objection and claims of the 2013 Panorama being "biased" are routed in their opinion that Shrien Dewani should have been convicted, but also - bizarrely - that the 2013 programme came down more on Shrien Dewani's side that the same programme did when they looked at the case in 2012. Any rational observer would see this shift as understandable in light of emerging evidence - and interpretation of it - yet Lane99 has claimed such a shift as de facto "proof" of a bias not seen in the earlier programme. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggested wording for the question. "Do you consider the 2013 BBC Panorama documentary (regarding Murder of Anni Dewani) to be biased? If so, please provide reasoning and examples to substantiate your claims". I think it may be beneficial to define bias because clearly some people are using the term inappropriately. A documentary that paints the case against an accused person as being very weak should not be labeled "biased" simply because the subject matter is unpopular with people who disagree with it. Facts are facts. If a documentary has, in good faith, presented facts that have been researched and sourced and those facts paint an issue in a certain complexion then this in and of itself cannot accurately be labeled "bias". Dewanifacts (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Even so, I think it's worth bearing in mind that while someone objecting to the programme may be able to quibble about certain details, the general thrust of the programme - i.e. questioning the prosecution's case against Shrien Dewani - was eventually vindicated in court. Cherry-picking A, B, and C as being wrong doesn't make the programme as a whole biased, if D-thru-Z were ultimately shown to be right. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. For "bias" to be shown, one would need to demonstrate that the overall thrust of the documentary incorrectly portrays the facts with the intent and result of skewing the perception of viewers. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I still continue to point out that the users who think Panorama is biased continues to fail to show how it is biased. It is "I think it is biased, so get it removed, it is grotesquely biased". Over and over again, but with no point other than a truly biased Wordpress source as a base for its argument and a personal opinion. While Panorama has been an British institution in media with its documentaries since 1953. I have yet seen no evidence of these two programmes in question being biased. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no confidence in this dispute resolution process based on how it has proceeded to date. The page itself reflects the opinions of the dominant contributors, who unfortunately appear to be blind to their own biases and unwilling to seriously consider others' points of view, even when issues are presented citing established Wikipedia policy. Even this discussion contains thinly veiled ad hominem attacks which only detract from proper discussion of the issues. Here the self-description of the anonymous blogger Dewanifacts as being "independent" and "nothing to do with the Dewanis" is apparently accepted uncritically. Both BabbaQ and Nick cooper routinely trot out the assertion that "Panorama is a reliable source" based solely on their assessment of the publisher, whilst refusing to engage with argument demonstrating serious reasons to doubt the impartiality of the program content and authorship. I have yet to see an answer to the points I've raised, citing WP:RELY, in both the Anni Dewani talk page, and the reliable source discussion. Similarly, my concerns presented on the talk page citing WP:BLP were never answered, with people apparently preferring to push through their own agenda by edit-warring. BabbaQ above asserts that the blog criticising Panorama is "truly biased" without advancing a jot of evidence in support. As it stands, the "Panorama" section is a joke. It presents only cherry-picked aspects of the program content, and presents it in a way which appears to endorse Panorama's assertions as being factual. The official pathologist's report is disparagingly referred to as a "purported version of events", and it is stated as if proven fact, that "the forensic evidence was not properly collected, but what was pointed to was an accidental discharge in a struggle, rather than a deliberate killing". Parts of the paragraph can be seen to violate WP:NOR, and perhaps also WP:SYNTH, as seen in the assertions concerning the proceeds of crime, the significance of CCTV footage, and implied knowlege of "what the money was actually for". In violation of WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, there is no attempt to present any dissenting views on this material. The issues of balance, due weight, neutral point of view, and original research affecting the Panorama section can also be seen to apply to the article as a whole. At present it reads like a coat hanger article, concerned more with legalistic defence of Shrien Dewani than the realities facing the blood relatives of the murder victim, who consistently stated throughout the legal process that they wanted to have answers and evidence on what happened to Anni tested through the court process. It is a matter of record that the legal process has forever denied them that closure. I think this article would benefit by being refocussed to such a broader perspective.afd (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wodnala so you say for real that a Wordpress source should be considered reliable over a Panorama documentary show that has been aired since 1953 and numerous reliable sources by highly regarded journalists. I say no more, talk about trotting around and being assertive and POV pushing. You are talking about one section and making it sound like it is affecting the entire article. The Panorama show outweighs Wordpress 10 times out of 10. Secondly, do not comment about me personally in a disrespectful tone if you want to be taken seriously in the future. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
BabbaQ you are trying to "put words in my mouth". I have made no comments at all about you personally. I stand by what I have actually written, which is an accurate description of the argument you have posted here repetitively, asserting simplistically that Panorama (1953) is well-respected, and criticism of the 2013 episode is "biased". You seem to think that it is OK to simply repeat whatever Panorama had to say on a subject, whilst suppressing criticism of it, merely because Panorama has a great reputation. Please justify if you can, the prominence given to the Panorama program of 2013, and the presentation of selected assertions made by that program, without any attempt to include dissenting views.afd (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Rather than ask whether the 2013 Panorama (TV series) report is biased, which is a non-neutral question, I would propose something to the effect of "Should the 2013 Panorama report on this case, which largely contradicts the 2012 Panorama report on the case, be given comparable weight in the article to the 2012 report?" Comments are welcome, but, in view of the respect which Panorama has achieved (earned), asking whether a particular report is biased seems non-neutral. Just my comment as moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Both Panorama editions are part of the process of how the prosecution's ultimately failed case came to be questioned. Saying the September 2013 edition "contradicted" the March 2012 one is, I think, misleading. The 2013 edition had the benefit of information and evidence that was not available to the programme-makers 18 months previously. We also shouldn't forget (although some editors may like us to) that the 2013 programme was more in line with what eventually emerged in court, which resulted in the case against Shrien Dewani being dismissed. Seriously, we're not arguing about a programme that suggested a chief suspect might be innocent, but they were subsequently convicted. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert I don't think your suggested wording is optimal. The 2013 version does not "largely" contradict the 2012 documentary. There are a few minor differences in the two editions, in light of new evidence that had come to light in the intervening 18 months as Nick pointed out but by and large both documentaries deserve acclaim, not derision. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

afd, you accuse me personally of refusing to "engage with argument demonstrating serious reasons to doubt the impartiality of the program content and authorship." I would say that it is more the case that Lane99 has utterly failed to demonstrate exactly how the Panorama programme is "biased," beyond cherry-picking a few details, none of which change the reality that Shrien Dewani walked free from court. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Nick Cooper It is quite easy to demonstrate deficiencies in the Panorama 2013 program by simply examining closely the claims it made. For example, the sole source of the alleged 'helicopter' evidence, highlighted in the program, and later submitted to court in Shrien Dewani's plea explanation, was none other than Dan Newling, who was listed in the Panorama credits for doing "additional research". The ONLY written evidence ANYWHERE to support that claim by Panorama, is in a book by that same Dan Newling, first published 14 months AFTER the program was aired. Panorama also stated they had seen medical evidence showing "the couple were actively trying for a baby". It is unlikely Panorama could have seen such medical records without collaboration of the Dewani family. It is not rocket science to figure out which side of the fence was feeding the Panorama script. I can provide many more examples and argument, based entirely on the "reliable" source itself, if you really wish to debate the excruciating detail.
According to Wikipedia policy WP:RELY assessment of the reliability of a source does not depend solely on the reputation of the publisher. Surely, if there are reasons to suspect Panorama 2013 was more in sympathy with one side of the issue, Wikipedia should take care to ensure dissenting opinion is fairly represented. The current article does not do that. See also my more general criticisms above at 01:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC).
Both Panorama episodes were largely opinion pieces. The 2013 episode reflected the opinion of hired experts who were not present at the crime scene, and who had no access to any of the physical evidence. The article should not be giving weight to Panorama without giving at least equal prominence to opposing views, not least those of the official investigators at the crime scene. afd (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
------
Another example pertaining to the concept of "reliable" sources.
Way back at the beginning of 2013 I tried to remove material alleging that Anni Dewani had been sexually assaulted. My edits were reversed, twice. I posted arguments on the talk page that it was not appropriate to include that content citing WP:BLP and WP:RELY, particularly as the content was likely to cause distress to the victim's family. I presented reasons at that time as to why the media reports should not be considered reliable. The red flags were all there both in the content and in the authorship but the issues I raised were never properly addressed, and the material still stands on the page to this day. The paragraph in question has since been proven beyond doubt to have no factual basis, through photographic evidence of the crime scene revealed in court at the trial of Shrien Dewani. Yet, incredibly, the erroneous media report is still prominent and unchanged in the final paragraph of the "Investigation" section.
Wikipedia seems incapable of dealing with the situation where mainstream media is being "spun" by vested interest groups. In this case, the Dewani family hired a well-known publicist, Max Clifford, to manage their image in the media. Yet even when the issue of reliability was raised on the talk page, citing the WP:BLP context, the content of the article, and its author's ties to Max Clifford, the relevant guidelines were completely ignored. afd (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what opinion was reflected in that 2013 (or 2012) Panorama documentary, they both proved to be largely correct, excellent pieces of investigative jounralism and were vindicated by the court's decision in the Dewani matter. Is everyone in this discussion aware that afd/Wodnala is the primary author of the unreliable, factually incorrect panoramabusted wordpress blog that has been referenced throughout this discussion? And also that afd/Wodnala is a prominent member of the rabidly pro-guilt justice4Anni group who spat the dummy when the Dewani verdict did not go their way? That editor's contributions need to be considered in this context. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding afd's comments as to the independance of Dewanifacts and whether we have any alliance to the Dewani family: I can catagorically state that we are entirely independant and have no link whatsoever to the Dewanis, have never met the Dewanis, don't know anyone who knows the Dewanis. None of this really matters though. Even if we were in fact Dewani family members, we would have every right to have a voice in making sure that the Wikipedia entry on this case is accurate, fair and factual in nature. As you will notice, none of our Wikipedia contributions are of the vague subjective "Panorama is so biased" style of nitpicking. We deal in objective facts, evidence and the findings of reputable, transparent courts. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Dewanifacts, who has now resorted to ad hominem attacks, I wish following to be noted. In this discussion I have avoided referring to the Panorama Busted blog. What I may or may not have contributed to that blog, or to the justice4Anni group, has no bearing at all on the arguments I have presented here. The record shows I have simply stated my view of the issues, based on the facts as I understand them. If anyone disagrees, they should similarly argue their case with evidence, not derogatory slurs. afd (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

afd: Apologies if my comments about your panoramabusted blog came across as personal. They were directed solely at the blog not at yourself. I will attempt to rephrase my comments. If a hypothetical editor has dedicated themself to producing an expansive blog aimed at discrediting one particular Panorama documentary then I would think that such fact is of relevance in a discussion focused solely on that same documentary's alleged "bias", and that this relevance would exist regardless of whether this hypothetical editor has referenced their blog during the discussion.Dewanifacts (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts If you wish to criticise the blog in question, you should do so citing material which illustrates your points. Mere name calling counts for little. Similarly, if you wish to make assertions about the motivations of an hypothetical editor, you should demonstrate the relevance of such hypothesized motivations to the present discussion, and refrain from referring to such hypothecation as "fact". What you are actually doing, is attacking my credibility here by improperly making suggestions as to my motives, whilst couching those suggestions in respectable language. Such comments are out of order. Please see the notice at the top of this discussion page, which says: "Comment only on the contributions not the contributor." afd (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This suggestion by afd that Panorama was an "opinion piece" and that equal prominence should be given to "opposing views" is unsettling and I feel strikes at the heart of what this dispute is really about. The Panorama documentary was one of the only genuine media efforts to test the strength of the case against Mr Dewani and the "opinions" of forensic experts obviously were relevant inclusions. The resultant aggregate "opinion" of the documentary was that the prosecution case against Mr Dewani was highly questionable - an "opinion" that ended up being vindicated by a Court that delivered an overwhelming, unequivocal Judgement in Mr Dewani's favour. For afd to suggest that equal prominence be given to opposing views, is tantamount to suggesting that Wikipedia should permit all factual inclusions to be balanced out by equally prominent speculative fictional inclusions. In essence my view is that because Panorama proved to be overwhelmingly accurate and correct in what it presented, it would be inappropriate to give any prominence at all to an opposing view claiming that its "biased" particularly when that view is held and voiced by a tiny minority. In addition it should be noted that hundreds of genuinely biased media stories have been published on this case, many of them cited on the wiki Article page. Were we to go down the path of providing an opposing viewpoint for each and every one of these stories, this Article would become an unwieldy confusing quagmire. I would also point out that afd seems to have moved the goalposts by talking about "deficiencies" in the Panorama program. This discussion is purportedly analysing whether Panorama is "biased" - not whether it contained one or two errors that have been cherrypicked and highlighted so as to inapproriately cast a pall over the entire documentary. Having said that I will also point out that the "deficiency" highlighted by afd is speculative in nature and wholly unsubstantiated. The source of the helicopter evidence was indeed respected Guardian journalist Dan Newling who interviewed Mr Dewani and later relayed what Mr Dewani has said regarding the helicopter trip. There is no evidence of any impropriety by Newling so it is erroneous to claim this as a "deficiency" of the Panorama program. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts Please stick to what I actually wrote, which was: "The article should not be giving weight to Panorama without giving at least equal prominence to opposing views, not least those of the official investigators at the crime scene." afd (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is someone going to actually furnish examples of the so called "bias"? I'm yet to see any.... afd: I'm intrigued. What did the official investigators at the crime scene say that was incorrectly contradicted by Panorama? Dewanifacts (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternate wording of RFC

Since I haven't seen any neutral proposals for how to word the RFC, I will offer a new proposal, in two parts. First: "Should both the 2012 Panorama documentary and the 2013 Panorama documentary be given equal weight, or should the 2013 documentary be given reduced weight?" Those who do not the 2013 version can state that they think it is biased. Second: "Should the criticism of the 2013 Panorama documentary be one sentence (as it currently is), a longer paragraph, or omitted?" Those are the questions I plan to formulate as the RFC unless there is a different neutral wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I broadly agree with Nick Cooper's assessment above, that the 2013 and 2013 versions are not incompatible (except for some particular issues of detail). I think the more relevant issue is, as I have stated above, that the Panorama programs were largely presenting opinion. If Panorama's opinion is to be given prominence in the article, it should be worded in a way which does not endorse those opinions as per WP:NPOV, and there should be due weight given to dissenting sources as per WP:DUE. It should also be recognised that the Dewani family were paying a media consultant to influence coverage in mainstream media, and that the content of the Panorama 2013 program demonstrates close connections to Dewani family sources. afd (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Why was Panorama accorded its own paragraph in the first place? The emphasis should be on what was said, not who said it. afd (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama is not merely a reliable source, but a highly respected source. What other reliable sources have given similar attention to this case? Do you have a proposed alternate neutral wording for the question in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
i)From where are you getting Panorama is classified as a "reliable, highly respected source"? Is this quantified somewhere? ii) I have compiled examples of Panorama's bias and unreliability. I took it from your earlier comment that you were inviting the opportunity to make this case via the RFC. Have you retracted this invitation now? If not, I would like to present the case via RFC.Lane99 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional Issues?

Since editors at the article have been asked to raise any additional issues here, please raise them here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I'm not sure why this thread has a barnstar at the beginning.  —☮JAaron95 Talk 07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
My typo in adding users added a user's barnstar. Weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Qed237#2016_WC_Hockey

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This user is on several articles removing content that is correct and sourced simply because the content does not agree with his preferd sources, I have tried discussing this with him on his talk page as it is across a few articles. He is continuing this behaviour reverting mulitple users. Other users have also discussed this with him see [this]

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none at this stage

How do you think we can help?

I need help in either explaining to this user that they cannot remove sourced material just because it doesn't fit their view on how wikipedia should be edited or explaining to me why my and others edits are invalid.

Summary of dispute by Qed237

Basically I remove edits when some editors add delibrate factual errors against source and timestamp to later update infobox properly when sources has been updated. Then all stats are updated according to the sources and not just adding my favourite footballer (or similar) like many other does. I have to sleep, but I can give a more detailed summary and my point of view later. Qed237 (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Qed237#2016_WC_Hockey discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - It appears that this isn't a dispute about any one article. This noticeboard is used to resolve content disputes about particular articles, and this appears to be being presented as a user conduct issue. Also, the filing party hasn't notified the other editors of this dispute (if there is a content dispute). The template {{subst:DRN-notice}} should be used for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, apologies, I have informed the user on his talk page (and the other user listed), I did not use the template as I was not aware of it, however the user has been informed (and has responded here), do I need to add the template as well? As for the article, this is directly related to two edits by me at two articles which were subsequently reverted, but it is correct that it is a general issue about editing as the principle being applied is at issue, if that means this is not suitable for this forum please could you advise on where I should bring it up? If you would like me to list the specific edit I can. Paul  Bradbury 08:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - Maybe some other volunteer is more diligent than I am, but, without mentioning the articles in question, I cannot even tell whether the amount of discussion on the user talk page is sufficient to meet the preconditions for discussion here, or whether this is an article content dispute at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think I actually need to be involved in this discussion, except I've got previous with User:Qed237. According to User:Pbradbury's note on my talk page, this stems from Qed237's propensity to revert edits when they don't quite meet with his exacting standards, even on BLPs. Personally, I believe this is contrary to WP:IMPERFECT; if another editor's contribution is accurate but not quite perfect, we shouldn't revert it but instead improve it - there is an argument that the editor will never learn if people always fix their work instead of asking them to do it themselves, but after all, this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Anyway, this probably isn't a topic for WP:DRN, as it's more of an issue of editor conduct. I just wanted to make my opinion known. – PeeJay 10:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  •   Volunteer note: It's highly perplexing to see in all of these talks, the article in question has not been mentioned once. And the involved editors didn't bother to do so in here, even after the volunteer requested. @Robert McClenon: I did some research and found out the article in question. It's this one, 2016 World Cup of Hockey. There are different IP editors involved and I'm not sure why PeeJay2K3 became involved here. Regards—☮JAaron95 Talk 12:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There has been no discussion at the talk page of the article identified by the other volunteer editor, and no discussion on the user talk page that identifies an article in question. It doesn't really matter whether this is a premature content dispute with no prior discussion or a poorly stated conduct dispute. Recommend closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Western Railway_Corridor#editing_of_Brenquinn_contributions

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am disputing the recent edits to the Western Railway Corridor page by user Brenquinn. They appear to be largely POV and Brenquinn may be connected directly to the Greenway campaigner Brendan Quinn.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been discussions on the talk page however Brenquinn has reverted the edits I made yesterday to bring the article back into NPOV.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party editor to review the edits and the talk page and arbitrate.

Summary of dispute by brenquinn

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Western Railway_Corridor#editing_of_Brenquinn_contributions discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •   Volunteer note: - I am not accepting nor declining this case at this time; nonetheless, thank you for filing a request for dispute resolution. There has been only minimal discussion on the talkpage in two separate threads, and the DRN request appears to have been filed with the intent of avoiding an edit war. However, if there is not extensive debate on the relevant talkpage and the content dispute in question only has two disputants thus far, it may actually be in the best interest of said disputants to seek a third opinion instead, especially since a third party is what is being asked for by the filer. BLUSTER⌉⌊BLASTER 11:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Elaine Wynn

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing dispute concerning Elaine Wynn's role in her husband's various corporations. One particular editor is adamant that she is a company co-founder, although assertions as such have been expunged from the Steve Wynn wikipedia.

Furthermore, one editor's insistence that she is primarily a "businesswoman" has been disputed, in favor of more aptly describing her as a "socialite" and/or "jet setter."

There is an ongoing dispute concerning the net worth of both Elaine Wynn and Steve Wynn in light of the collapse of their company stock.

Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No other methods have been initiated.

How do you think we can help?

Provide supporting or adversarial opinions, then proceed to a final determination.

Summary of dispute by TooHool

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Elaine Wynn discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - Multiple editors have discussed at the article talk page. The filing party has only listed one of them. It is the responsibility of the filing party to list and notify the editors of this request for dispute resolution. The template {{subst:DRN-notice}} is used for this purpose. Also the filing party should list himself or herself as one of the editors in the dispute. Please list and notify all of the involved editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Microwave auditory_effect

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are doctor, psychologists, engineers, researchers, victims, etc. cited and given appropriate weight but other editors are insistent that such views not be represented at all but merely called 'delusional', this is inaccurate and IMO alternative views, when credible, ought to be represented.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Their talk page, article's talk page, compromising revisions

How do you think we can help?

Help us come to a fair compromise such that multiple views may be represented

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Microwave auditory_effect discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A picture has erroneously been uploaded to Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capt.Alfred_de_Grazia_at_Dachau_concentration_camp,_ca_May_1st_1945.jpg), attributed and posted on my father's "notables" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_de_Grazia).

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/347340189988471388 I don't regularly contribute or edit Wikipedia; the page is of my father, so naturally I am concerned for my family, especially the great-grandchildren, but the public has rights that I fully respect. I believe I have established a certain case; the picture shown and the actual picture of my father that has been uploaded to Pinterest https://www.pinterest.com/pin/347340189988471388/ are not the same person; anyone can see that. Why is User:Beyond My Ken so insistent on putting a fake holocaust picture on the page? This is a very important matter. The German people must pay reparations for the crimes of the Nazis, and so every bit of evidence is extremely important. The legal principle is "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." That means that if a German lawyer can find a falsification, such as this very obvious one, they can have all of my father's testimony thrown out. It may even have been a Trojan horse from the beginning, but I think that's unlikely. I'm not saying he wasn't in the KZ camps at the end of the War; he was, and I saw the picture of him taken at Buchenwald, but that isn't him. You are flying in the face of reason and logic by allowing that picture to remain there and on Commons. It will throw doubt on other matters associated with his written records of an epoch, and play into the hands of Jew-haters, bigots, and anyone who rejoices at the death of so many innocents. The picture is, in fact, being linked to by Arab and pro-Nazi sites. Jagtig (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried reasoning with Beyond My Ken. I don't understand his logic. However the picture found its way into my father's war book, you must understand that he filled entire rooms with his writings, and a secretary was routinely employed, a person who might simply not understand the gravity of the matter. He didn't actually do the final composing work; I remember my mother did a lot of the composition and editing when they were still together.

How do you think we can help?

Simply, show Beyond My Ken the error of his ways. I, the son of Alfred de Grazia, would know what is true in this matter, and what is in error. The picture he wants to post is in error. If he looks in the Library of Congress archive containing the letters to my mother Jill de Grazia, he may find the right picture; the one taken at Buchenwald.

Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jagtg's dispute is not with me. Please see this AN/I thread and the discussion on the talk page, which largely duplicates it, here. The pertinent facts:
  • The photograph in question was uploaded by Commons user Commons:User:Aldegraz on 22 January 2010, with the notes:
    • Description=This picture shows me, Capt. Alfred de Grazia, in front of a pile of dead bodies at Dachau concentration camp in Bavaria Germany, two (maybe three) days after the liberation of the camp by the American army. I was then Commanding Officer of the Psychological Warfare Combat Propaganda Team attached to HQ, the Seventh Army.
    • Source=This picture of me was taken at Dachau concentration camp in Germany with my own camera by a fellow American soldier.
    • Author=This picture of me was taken with my own camera by a fellow American soldier.
  • The image carries OTRS ticket #2010010910012164. I presume that this means that the uploading editor presented prooof of his identity and authorship of the photo.
  • The image also appears in a self-published book by Alfred de Grazia, A Taste of War: Soldiering in World War II. It's available on Amazon.com, and using the "Look Inside" feature one can see the same photograph just prior to page 482 (scroll about 7/8ths down the scroll bar). The caption reads "The author at Dachau".
  • The picture also appears online on a site called kalos.com, in an essay called "The Life of Alfred de Grazia" supposedly written by Anne-Marie (Ami) de Grazia. (Just shy of 1/2 way down the page). This is the name of the woman Alfred de Grazia was married to at the time of his death, according to our article, which was heavily contributed to by Jagtig.
  • Against this, Jagtig reallly offer nothing except his (obviously very strong) feeling that the picture does not show Alfred de Grazia.

This why I say that Jagtig's dispute is not with me, it's with the available facts, which speak strongly against his contention.

I really have no interest in any further participation until Jagtig is willing to offer some kind of evidentiary proof that the image is not Alfred de Grazia. As Nyytend said on the AN/I thread: "Please supply solid sourcing (e.g. a scholar discussing his book and noting that he mislabelled the picture in question) as evidence for your answer."

I will not be watching this page, so please notify me if I am required to respond again. BMK (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's just my opinion, so therefore not evidence, but the person on the right in the Pinterest picture posted by Jagtig [7] looks very much like the man in this picture [8]. I cannot see where Jagtig draws the conclusion that they are not the same. BMK (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My_Ken discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Nyttend discussion

Forum shopping; Jagtig's assertions have already been proven false at WP:ANI, so he comes here. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much.

Latest comment: 9 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion
  – This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The dispute is over the plot summary originally written by Popcornduff, for the movie "Under the Skin." This dispute is documented in Talk, in the "Plot summary assumes way too much" section. There is an older, similar dispute between Popcornduff and BoogaLouie, in which Popcornduff reverted BoogaLouie's edits twice, but the current dispute is between me (CapuchinPilates) and Popcornduff, who has reverted 3 dissimilar edits I have made to the plot. I am arguing for a plot summary that accurately describes the arc of the plot, and uses primarily those details and scenes that are important to the plot. I argued for taking out a whole mess of minor details that were not crucial to anything. Popcornduff objects to the language in my last two edits as: purple prose, flowery, and overwritten. See talk page for my response.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

My first edit was somewhat misinformed, and reverted by Popcornduff. Then I read the talk section and offered suggestions for a different kind of rewrite. I received feedback, and incorporated it into my rewrite. It also was reverted. In talk I refuted each of the things that were criticized, but I offered to remove or modify each of them if that's what others wanted. I received feedback for one thing, aliens, and made that change to my 3rd edit. It was also reverted, without any talk.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps a mediation or negotiation with Popcornduff on this formum would be useful, because I've already tried doing this on talk and Popcornduff has stopped responding. Also, I think that outside opinions would be useful by editors expert in narrative, plot, movies, or fiction, and not just expert in WP policy. I think it would be helpful for outsiders to compare my 15:30, 1 August 2015 version with the current one, and also read the plot talk section, as it details all the arguments.

Summary of dispute by Popcornduff

Back in May 2014, BoogaLouie rewrote the plot summary to include a lot of technical detail and speculation, which I reverted. After discussing it on the Talk page, I understood BoogaLouie's objections better: he/she felt the plot summary inappropriately assumed the protagonist was an alien. I thought this was a fair criticism, so I rewrote the summary to remove the assumption.

A year later, Capuchinpilates rewrote the plot summary with a lot of flowery prose and personal interpretation, which I've reverted. The current dispute has nothing to do with the argument with BoogaLouie last year. Popcornduff (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by BoogaLouie

Just stumbled across this discussion (in connection with another dispute below). Let me repeat my argument again Popcornduff's edits from a year ago: `I put it to you that in a film such this, the director is not so much interested in developing a clear plot but in atmosphere and feeling. With no clear plot, providing (normally extraneous) "technical composition" details is the next best thing. ... In the absence of clear-cut plot indication that the woman is an alien, I think the article is better served by describing the reasons why she might be, even if it moves away from strictly plot description.`
Maybe 95% or 98% of movies seen by audiences have a plot, but for the 5%, 2%, whatever, that don't, may I suggest wikipedia ease its regulations on the "plot" section of articles on movies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Though I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN, I'm removing my DRN hat and entering this dispute as a simple editor, not in my volunteer capacity. I want to offer some comments and opinions and then will not be further involved in the discussion here. First, let me note that I think this dispute is summed up in this edit and my comments and opinions here are based upon that assumption. First, I don't think either version is perfect, but I agree that the result of that edit — let's call that result "PCD's version" though I recognize that it may not be entirely PCD's work — is vastly superior to CP's version. It must be remembered that since the film itself is the source for this plot summary, the film is a primary source and the primary source policy says, in one of the clearest prohibitions in Wikipedia policy, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source" (emphasis in original). That means that when preparing a text summary of an audiovisual object that the summary must be limited to whatever is absolutely obvious from the screen and soundtrack and about which no reasonable person could disagree is what is there, with no coloring whatsoever. PCD's version comes much closer to avoiding violations of that policy, while CP's version fails to do so with paragraphs such as, "However, the woman begins to have a series of increasingly unsettling experiences that leave her confused, curious and afraid. After attempting to pick up a man at a beach, she watches him run off to risk his life trying to save two others from drowning. Later she falls down while walking on the sidewalk, and a number of concerned strangers help her up. Driving around she observes the daily life of regular people. Then, after leading a lonely, romantically inexperienced man into the liquidy void, she is disquieted by studying her face in a mirror, and then noticing a fly trapped against a window." That description is, very likely, a correct analysis of what's going on, but it is an analysis of the kind prohibited by the primary source policy. Next, it needs to be remembered that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, review site, film guide, or other such medium and plain language suits that purpose much better than colorful or fanciful language such as "liquidy" and "appropriates," just to pick a couple of examples out of many in CP's version. CP admits in this edit that s/he intends to include interpretation, "Wikipedia is ultimately for serving people's needs rather than slavishly following rules, so I’ll include a very small amount of analysis." That's true as a general or default principle, but when one's work is challenged as it has been here (and as usually happens when you go up against policy) then it must be recognized that policy is the established consensus of the community and to do something different than what policy mandates requires that you either change the policy or form a new consensus at the article as a local exception to the result mandated by policy. I see no consensus forming for CP's version, I submit my consensus !vote in opposition to it for the reasons I've stated above, and it should remain reverted until CP is able to obtain consensus for it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Under the Skin (2013 film)#Plot assumes way too much.|Plot assumes way too much. discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extended recent discussion at the article talk page in the section "Plot assumes way too much". The case is ripe for moderated discussion. I am neither opening nor declining the case, but am recommending that it be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait, it seems a little unseemly and unproductive to me for someone who volunteers as a dispute moderator on this forum, to come in and vote against a disputant. I asked for a mediation, or the opinion of an expert in plot, not another lecture on WP policy (although I am a bit ignorant of WP policy and how this forum works, and I did learn a thing or two from him/her). Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


I wanted to put a ping out there requesting a moderator for this dispute. Also, I will be on vacation all of this coming week. Upon my return I expect the dispute to be totally resolved, with the result being universal, global worship of my version of the plot. Capuchinpilates (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I'd be happy to moderate a discussion here. First off, regarding User:TransporterMan's comment, it is permissible. Per DRN policy, he identified that he took part in the discussion outside of his capacity as a volunteer. Additionally, DRN volunteers don't have any authority per se, they just more or less help the discussion along, providing suggestions and asking questions as needed. North of Eden (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion has already been opened. Please see this for why this segment has been collapsed. North of Eden (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I will be the mediator for this dispute. Thanks, The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
Ok so there is a problem here. The person who filed the case and who is the only party on his/her side is not going to be here for a week and expects it to go their way without them. They basically gave permission for the decision to be made without them or their representation assuming that it will go their way. I have looked it over and keep in mind I am NOT taking sides but Capuchinpilates version is an interpretation, no doubt about it, it is not relative or anything, it is plainly an interpretation. And Wikipedia's rules do not allow interpretation and those are just the facts. So I am pretty new at this so I am going to take a bit to think about how I can help both sides come to a compromise and be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs) 09:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I have two main goals, One, to help the both sodes reach consensus, and two, reach a result that benefits the encyclopedia. That comes from two sources, "Consensus does not mean that all the parties are fully satisfied with the resolution, it merely means that all the parties can live with the resolution as that is the nature of compromise." And from, "The purpose of mediation is to secure a result that benefits the encyclopedia—not to ensure fairness for any one contributor. Mediators work with disputants but for the encyclopedia." Now keep in mind, I am not personally taking sides. I am ensuring that what each side wishes meets the standards of Wikipedia and if it technically doesn't, I have to help make a compromise that meets Wikipedias standards or help the side that doesnt meet the standards, live with the other sides version prevailing. I have decided that factually, NOT based on opinion, thatCapuchinpilates' version does mot meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Now if anyone takes Capuchinpilates' side, we can begin mediation about it. If not, we will begin in a week. I think that if we end up starting in a week, the primary focus should be either both sides coming to a compromise as far as a plot version that is original and different than both and meets the standards, or seeing if Capuchinpilates can live with the plot staying as it is now. I am not attempting to take sides and am just disapproving of Capuchinpilates version because it TECHNICALLY does not meet the standards and because I cannot knowingly let Wikipedia contain biased infornmation, there is nothing I can do about it. If anyone is on Capuchinpilates' side, let me know and we can start mediation right away, if not, lets wait a week and follow the plan I created. Thanks everyone The Editor of All Things Wikipedia 《Talk》 09:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor of All Things Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
Yes, that would be great if it could be on hold until the 15th. My comment about the dispute getting resolved was a joke, meant to lighten the mood. Capuchinpilates (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
That's what I figured ;) Enjoy your break and looking forward to a discussion at a later date. I'll close the thread as "on hold" until the 15th. North of Eden (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes and yes. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be useful if I made the observation that, while at first glance BoogaLouie and I seem to be for opposite things, actually we both have wanted many similar things. We both felt it important to use words like "seems" or "appears," or some other mechanism that makes it clear that while the movie does not overtly state something in particular, like aliens, that it does imply it. Both of us also have wanted to add the initial, abstract "shapes" scene. If others want, we could talk about these two things, and I could explain them more. Capuchinpilates (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I would be genuinely interested in hearing from you why you don't want words like "appears" or "seemingly" in this plot summary, beyond that you think it's against policy, or that they are weasel words, or purple prose, or un-encyclopedic, any other label. How is the world a better place by not having ambiguity in this particular plot summary for this particular movie? Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This movie has an ambiguous plot. It is therefore our duty to reflect that ambiguity by avoiding attempts at clarification or interpretation, at least in the plot summary.
If you have to use a word like "apparently" or "seemingly", you're probably making a personal interpretation or judgement. Our plot summaries should describe as neutrally as possible the events on the screen, not speculate about their implications. Popcornduff (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
But if any reasonable viewer would assume that the woman is "alien" or "otherwordly," then who is being victimized by reading a plot summary that communicates that? I don't get it, do you think someone's experience of the film is going to be ruined by hearing that the woman definitely seems to not be from earth? How is keeping this information off the page, helping anyone?
And I think there's a difference between personal interpretation, and representing the trajectory of the movie. Since the movie seems to want us to think she's alien, then this isn't my interpretation, it's just putting down in print what the movie didn't, but we were all thinking. I think the reader of the plot who hasn't seen the movie, deserves to be given the opportunity to know important aspects of the movie, that any reasonable viewer of the movie knows. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Our plot summary provides more or less the same information about the protagonist as the film does. Popcornduff (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but it would be impossible for a summary to provide the same info as the film, think of all the facial expressions, the body language, the ways of walking, talking, undressing, etc. ect.. All of these things are done carefully in the film, put there by the artists, because they are important, they all are there to communicate crucial things to the viewer. The reader of WP can't get all that stuff, so that's why the WP editor summarizes all this for the reader. The plot "summary," is just that, it's nothing but our interpretation of the total film put before us. Maybe your thinking that the WP editor is objective, or the summary should be objective, but the editing by its very nature is totally subjective, we pick and choose which scenes to include, which aspects of those scenes, which words to represent those scenes, and on and on, the whole process is subjective, full of interpretation, and our own biases. But that's OK.
The plot summary as it stands, doesn't represent the protagonist at all; I find the summary to be a misrepresentation of the film. If I read the summary, then watched the film, they would seem almost like two totally different plots. That's why I think you have to use a bit of language that isn't totally business-like, how can you represent art with business language, it's absurd. Think about why you personally like the film and find it meaningful, its because of the beauty of the characters, the striking imagery, the interpersonal interaction between characters, and the changes in the protagonist, these are all part of the plot, and can be summarized in an encyclopedic way. To leave these things out, is to bleach it of everything that you and I love about it. Capuchinpilates (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand your position, and you're right in that in the end it's impossible to be truly objective in an enclyopaedia article. But we must try to be as objective as possible, and your suggestions go beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia and into the realm of a personal review or analysis. Why you or I "personally like the film and find it meaningful" has no place in the Wikipedia article about it. Your suggestions would require Wikipedia to dramatically change its plot summary policy. Popcornduff (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you might be right that some of what I want would require a larger battle about WP policy, but within the existing policy there is still a lot of room for summarizing things like the feel of a movie, and the changes in the characters, if this is indeed part of the plot of the film. And if the plot is ambiguous, then if the plot summary doesn't represent this ambiguity, I don't see how the summary could be accurate. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@BoogaLouie:What are your thoughts on this current discussion? Capuchinpilates (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Capuchinpilates:I'm afraid I'm going to bow out at this point. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • My apologies for my absence here; I have been swamped in real life and was out for a few days. It looks like things aren't going especially well in the discussion, which is understandable; I am willing to continue discussion if we have enough parties to go forward, otherwise, I can offer some concluding thoughts and offer other options. North of Eden (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
A suggestion from someone not involved. Almost all the problems here come the plot summary being based on what people remember after watching the film. Suppose, instead of it being a film, it had been a real life incident that editors had witnessed - WP:OR would forbid editors writing on the basis of their memories. Instead policy would have them write solely on the basis of what published sources said had happened. If we did the same with this film, you would get out of all your problems. You could cite film reviews and articles about the film for the "facts". This would fix all Capuchinpilates' and Popcornduff's problems with the plot summary. I realise there could be some objections from people who saw the film - but it is the same with real life events being remembered differently from published accounts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
It's certainly an interesting idea, but I don't think other editors would go along with it, and it would make the plot summary of this movie into a totally different format than all other plot summaries on WP. Also, what happens when reviewers disagree, would the summary cite all of their takes? Maybe Toddy1's idea is something to take to the WP page where policy on plot summaries is discussed. Capuchinpilates (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I agree, we don't seem to be getting much of anywhere here. I'm happy to continue or negotiate, but BoogaLouie, who has argued for the same things as me, doesn't want to participate anymore, and I feel that Popcornduff is not real into this. So yes, North of Eden, I'd be interested in what you have to say, but I fear you might simply say that, in the absence of consensus it should just remain the way it is, or it shouldn't include any language more complex than it has now. But there's a few problems with that. One, is that the language I'm interested in using is not against policy; there are no rules against using "weasel words" and "purple prose." Two, there are other issues we haven't gotten to here; Popcornduff says language I've used is purple prose, I say it's not (and I'd be happy to say more about that). But the biggest problem is with being able to make any improvements to the plot summary at all. Popcornduff wrote the original summary, and he seems to me to be blocking anyone else from making any substantial changes. S/he's reverted many, many editors, and while many of the reverts I would probably agree with, he seems willing to edit war where others aren't. So if one editor protects their own editing, then how can a WP page ever improve? For an obscure movie like this, I don't think there's ever going to be some troupe of like-minded editors who show up on the talk page at the same time and demand the same changes.
Popcornduff, I think I've probably offended you many times by saying that the plot summary is not very good, and for that I apologize.Capuchinpilates (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not offended in the slightest. FYI, I didn't write the original version of the plot summary, and the current version isn't entirely by me, either - for example, I once argued in favour of saying that the protagonist is an alien, until BoogaLouie talked me round.
Look, I think you're making a hopeless case here. As I and other editors keep saying, including interpretation in the plot is a violation of Wiki policy. If you want to debate whether phrases like "completes her masquerade" and "she is no longer the hunter but the hunted" are purple prose inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, well, perhaps other moderators would like to chip in. Popcornduff (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Glad you're not offended. From the article history, it definitely looks like you added the plot section and the very first summary on March 17 2014. As for a hopeless case, you're probably right, but I think I could make a pretty good argument for those phrases simply being factual, accurate descriptions and not purple prose. I just watched Ex Machina, might try my hand at adding a bit of violet prose to that plot summary.Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected - I guess I did write the very first version of the Under the Skin plot summary. Time flies... Popcornduff (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I watched Ex Machina this week, so last night I edited its WP plot summary, my first edit since Under the Skin, and within hours my edits have been modified by none other than Popcornduff! My first thought was that I'm being stalked and messed with, but looking down the history I see that PCD had been editing this page before me. It appears that the stalker is me! But PCD, what do you think of the last line of the Ex Machina summary that says that Ava "enters human society"? Or the line, "Persuaded of Ava's emotions, Caleb decides that her confinement is abuse." Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that my edits are nothing personal - we just so happened to both work on another article about a British science fiction movie, which isn't much of a coincidence when you think about it (similar tastes I guess). The community of editors regularly working on film articles is pretty small, really. If you want to discuss the Ex Machina article, I suggest you use the Talk page for that article. Popcornduff (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_121&oldid=1137473867"