Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 146
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 140 | ← | Archive 144 | Archive 145 | Archive 146 | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | → | Archive 150 |
Talk:Denis Villeneuve#Intro Sentence
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The filing party wishes to seek a definitive resolution via wider consensus (to avoid reverts by third parties), which would be better done with an RfC on the article talk page than at DRN. Also, the question of whether or not an RfC will be able to address similar edits made in other articles if the RfC is posted in one particular article was raised. This depends on what is posted in the RfC statement. The RfC creator can make specific references to changes (article name and location in article) being considered for other articles within the RfC. --JustBerry (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by JimboM32 on 23:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC).
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 Disagreement regarding the nationality of a living person in the article lead (Canadian vs French-Canadian). It is my assertion that nationality is defined by the nation-state in which you are a citizen, which is supported by the Manual of Style on Biographies. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussion, Third Opinion Request How do you think we can help? The Third Opinion Request did not provide a lasting resolution. In my opinion, the issue requires a definitive decision from a third party in order to avoid further reverts (though it doesn't qualify as an "edit war" since the reverts are weeks apart, that is essentially what it is). Summary of dispute by Sombracier47Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jimbo's point of view and idea on what is a nation is wrong and, concerning the particular case of Denis Villeneuve, results in a denial of his identity and perpetrate a prejudice on smaller nations most prominent artists. Many, and I mean many, other artists from Québec are either identified as French Canadian or Quebecer, and it should stay that way. Villeneuve himself stated he considers himself a Quebecer, and yet it's still being changed back. This can't continue and needs to stop. Denis Villeneuve (you can't even pronounce his name right) is a French Canadian. If it goes the wrong way, it will set up a terrible precedent in wikipedia history, as this particular debate is not even close to be a problem on the french wikipedia. Respect the artist, respect its identity. Talk:Denis Villeneuve#Intro Sentence discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit_request_on_13_July_2016_for_.22Fascism.22
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been only scattered discussion at the article talk page over a period of months, no recent extended discussion such as could precede discussion here. Discuss at the article talk page. If discussion continues and is inconclusive, another case request here may be in order (but not if the discussion consists of one comment a week for months). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Van Helsing_(TV_series)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been discussion on the article talk page, but not within the past week. Also, the filing party has not listed the other editors. The editors are advised to resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Greer Honeywill#Sources
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | DRN deals with content disputes, rather than behavioral concerns. WP:ANI may be a more appropriate noticeboard for this issue. Moreover, the article talk page does not suggest extensive talk page discussion on a particular content dispute. --JustBerry (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- HopsonRoad (talk · contribs)
- Muboshgu (talk · contribs)
- Tiller54 (talk · contribs)
- Shivertimbers433 (talk · contribs)
- Artaxerxes (talk · contribs)
- GoodDay (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is disagreement about whether an election result infobox should include a third-party candidate, who received less than 5% of the vote, in an election where neither major candidate achieved a majority. Those in favor of inclusion feel that the third-party votes prevented a majority. Those not in favor argue that the third-party votes were not determinative because neither major-party candidate persuaded swing voters to their side. They claim that inclusion in the infobox gives undue weight to a non-notable candidate.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Suggested using an explanatory footnote, instead of a full-blown presence in the infobox, as seen in this edit.
How do you think we can help?
Suggest whether listing the vote tallies (as a percentage) of the top three candidates is more appropriate than an explanatory footnote with only the top two vote getters or suggest another alternative.
Summary of dispute by Muboshgu
Summary of dispute by Tiller54
Summary of dispute by Shivertimbers433
Summary of dispute by Artaxerxes
INCLUDE/KEEP: It's not so much about Wikipedia editors assuming the third-party candidate did or did not affect the overall campaign result. Putting this candidate's information in the infobox gives readers, political observers, researchers, etc., the easy-to-read ability to assess/consider/factor in the possible impact for themselves. The third-party candidate's presence in the race may be considered significant—politically, historically, statistically, culturally—by future readers of the article in ways not foreseen by editors now.--Artaxerxes 03:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- This entire process is strange to me, with all the "volunteers", "summaries", and different places to comment. I've stated my case above, and firmly believe that's the way to go. Other reasons for it might be mentioned. Living in Vermont I've watched these close gubernatorial elections and how they swing between parties on a couple thousand votes. The "granular" nature of this razor-edged balance could be of interest to observers of Vermont politics. This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote. Everything small is big in a state the size of Vermont. I see no great cost for inclusion in this case: a footnote can explain why the exception to Wiki policy. (Besides, Vermont is used to being first in things.)--Artaxerxes 14:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GoodDay
I'm a late comer to this dispute, as I only joined the discussion at page-in-question, today. We've a tricky situation there. AFAIK, the practice across US gubernatorial election articles, is to exclude candidates from the infobox, who failed to obtain 5% of the popular vote. However, in this particular gubernatorial election - no candidate got 50%, thus throwing the election to the state's General Assembly. Question is - Due we include the third party candidate into the infobox (even though he didn't get 5%) on the assumption that he caused the election to be thrown to the General Assembly (i.e did he personally take enough votes from the eventual victor, causing the victor to come up short in the popular percentage & thus require going to the General Assembly) or do we exclude, as we don't know if he personally took enough votes away. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate discussion
- Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed an actual article or article talk page above. The filing party is requested to edit the case listing and list the case in dispute (either the article or its talk page) correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- The talk page in discussion is Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate. User:HopsonRoad 17:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Done by User:HopsonRoad --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note: 
Verified Noticeable discussion on article talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)- Volunteer note: Verified All editors have been notified on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note:
Partly done 2/6 dispute summaries given. Waiting for other four users. --JustBerry (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC) - Volunteer note - The recent discussion is in the middle of older discussion. Reopening. This case is ready for a moderator. It appears that User:JustBerry is preparing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Since talk page discussion is active and only two out of the six involved parties have filed their summaries, seems like talk page discussion has not yet been exhausted or finished. Moderation will begin once talk page discussion has failed reaching a consensus or resolution. --JustBerry (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Update – GoodDay (talk · contribs) proposed a compromise seen here, which was reverted by Tiller54 (talk · contribs) without discussion on the Talk page. This compromise is, for the time being, the status quo. Tiller54 has received ample encouragement to participate at Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate. User:HopsonRoad 14:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - User:JustBerry - Is this case still being discussed, or should it be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - If some of the listed parties wish to discuss this and others do not, since participation here is voluntary, discussion may continue with those participants who wish to participate. Do the editors who have commented wish to continue to discuss? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm available and appreciative of your willingness and ability to help. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: Thanks for your reply. --JustBerry (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The 2 most active parties (myself & HopsonRoad) are in agreement at Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 & so there's little to discuss. The opposition seems to have dried up. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Do any of the other involved parties wish to continue discussion? Checking in with User:Artaxerxes, as xe had a dispute summary posted for the case. Heading towards a close. --JustBerry (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: @HopsonRoad: @GoodDay: Although you may have come to agree with each other, what do you think of the dispute summary User:Artaxerxes posted? --JustBerry (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it had been my choice, I'd have opened up an Rfc on the matter. Anyways, I still believe that footnotes is all that's required for the Libertarian nominee. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the solution that we agreed upon accomplishes what User:Artaxerxes is looking for, namely, "Putting this candidate's information in the infobox gives readers, political observers, researchers, etc., the easy-to-read ability to assess/consider/factor in the possible impact for themselves." The footnotes achieve this in a manner that does not give undue importance to the third-party candidate's votes. Furthermore, the Analysis section covers the role of the third-party candidate in the results sufficiently, which includes the candidate himself opining that he was "not a spoiler". I have found no WP policy to which one could refer and explain contravention of in a footnote. The article contains no corroboration of his statement that "This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote." He mentions "cost" of inclusion—to me it is about giving a third-party candidate prominence in a race where the major-party candidates failed to win voters to their cause, as normally happens in Vermont. It also makes the infobox look incomplete to have a missing image with the third candidate—a function of his non-notability. User:HopsonRoad 22:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- A resolution may be better achieved by obtaining wider consensus on this issue through an RfC (per GoodDay's point above). @HopsonRoad: @Artaxerxes: Would you agree? --JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I would support an RfC. A blank spot for an image in the infobox is a prompt for somebody to fill it—perhaps an editor in Vermont such as myself. Challenged to show that the third-party candidate received considerable attention in the run-up to the vote, I might say I noticed far more on him than on Milne when he challenged Leahy for Senate this year. Without original research, doing an analysis of relative coverage/attention might be tricky—but, as with the image, I might feel pressed to provide some support for the point (as I was the one who made on it). I'm mostly referring to Vermont-based political commentary I heard on radio or saw on television.--Artaxerxes 13:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with that process. If it means that additional experienced eyes look in on the controversy, I see no harm in it. However, I feel that this issue has occupied more time and emotion than it warrants. I'd be interested in what your take on the matter is, JustBerry. Perhaps the parties can be content to receive your advice. User:HopsonRoad 20:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: In the requests for comment process, fellow editors vote for or against the change or pose an alternate suggestion in some cases. The purpose of this process is to achieve wider consensus. Although DRN volunteers generally don't offer their own opinion, but provide mediation, guidelines, and direction for discussion amongst involved editors, I can offer a few words. Firstly, seeing the secretary of state election results, the candidates listed matches the article. Additionally, this other reference lists similarly. Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves? On the contrary, regarding your statement User:Artaxerxes, which sources support this: This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote. Everything small is big in a state the size of Vermont. In the end, a discussion grounded in verifiability should be focusing on coverage by independent, third-party, reliable sources of the event to support or argue against including those other candidates. --JustBerry (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, here, JustBerry. To answer your question, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves?", of course they should be and are—in the body of the article. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the Mississippi gubernatorial election, 1999 article, where the third party candidate garnered 1% that caused the legislature to decide the outcome. How vanishingly small does the difference in votes between the major party candidates have to become to make it clear that it's the failure of either party to convince a majority, not the presence of one or more third parties, that causes a plurality result? The question remains, should the minority party appear in the infobox? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: To clarify, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves in the infobox?" The question here is how well does the main news coverage of the election report on third-party candidates or just the top two. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JustBerry: Yours is a legitimate question to ponder about the role of mainstream news coverage in achieving an even playing field in politics. However, notability of a third-party candidate hinges on the degree to which that person is written about in reliable sources, fair or not. IMO that is a question for Libertarian candidates, nationwide, not just this race in Vermont. User:HopsonRoad 20:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: Depending on the source, news sources can be considered reliable sources. However, adding in the fact that the scope of the content dispute is beyond the one article linked in the case, it might be best to pursue an RfC, in which editors actively editing in articles relating to politics, politicians, political organizations, and elections can help establish consensus regarding candidate listing for election results on the article series of concern. --JustBerry (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @JustBerry: Thanks for the observation and for your work here. I believe that I said yes to an RfC, below. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: To clarify, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves in the infobox?" The question here is how well does the main news coverage of the election report on third-party candidates or just the top two. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, here, JustBerry. To answer your question, "Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves?", of course they should be and are—in the body of the article. I don't know if you had a chance to look at the Mississippi gubernatorial election, 1999 article, where the third party candidate garnered 1% that caused the legislature to decide the outcome. How vanishingly small does the difference in votes between the major party candidates have to become to make it clear that it's the failure of either party to convince a majority, not the presence of one or more third parties, that causes a plurality result? The question remains, should the minority party appear in the infobox? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @HopsonRoad: In the requests for comment process, fellow editors vote for or against the change or pose an alternate suggestion in some cases. The purpose of this process is to achieve wider consensus. Although DRN volunteers generally don't offer their own opinion, but provide mediation, guidelines, and direction for discussion amongst involved editors, I can offer a few words. Firstly, seeing the secretary of state election results, the candidates listed matches the article. Additionally, this other reference lists similarly. Why should readers not be directly presented with the percentages to interpret the election for themselves? On the contrary, regarding your statement User:Artaxerxes, which sources support this: This third-party candidate in particular received considerable attention in the political discussion leading up to the vote. Everything small is big in a state the size of Vermont. In the end, a discussion grounded in verifiability should be focusing on coverage by independent, third-party, reliable sources of the event to support or argue against including those other candidates. --JustBerry (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- With User:Artaxerxes and GoodDay advocating it, it looks like an WP:RfC is the way to go. I guess that I'll find out what it is/does, along the way. User:HopsonRoad 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agree This discussion is probably better held on an article talk page with an RfC. --JustBerry (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hirsch Metropolitan High School
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed for various reasons. There was no previous discussion on the article talk page. This appears to involve the (valid) removal of a promotional edit. If there is a content dispute, discuss on the article talk page. Other editors may report conduct disputes at WP:ANI, the edit-warring noticeboard, or the vandalism noticeboard, depending on the nature of the conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Gender dysphoria#Changing_.22GID.22_to_.22gender_dysphoria.22_throughout_the_article
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | General closing as dispute is more about process than content and a rough consensus is holding until further discussion can determine the best course of action that all parties agree to.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview The title of the article is gender dysphoria, yet the term very frequently used in the article is GID (for gender identity disorder). Gender identity disorder was the old name of the article, and GID is an outdated term. So, I attempted to update the term GID to gender dysphoria throughout the article. This created a dispute over whether gender dysphoria is an equivalent term for GID, and therefore a dispute over whether the term should be updated. Consensus on the talk page has not been reached on whether to use the term GID or gender dysphoria. Edit: The relevant section on the talk page is Changing "GID" to "gender dysphoria" throughout the article Megathon7 (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies has been alerted of the dispute by another user. How do you think we can help? Provide guidance on next steps to resolve dispute, or provide clarity on whether the term GID or gender dysphoria should be used. Summary of dispute by Flyer22 RebornPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A new article is not needed in this case. That would be an inappropriate content fork. Use of alternative terms are usually fine, and those terms should usually be covered in the same article. In this case, it's not simply a name change. The GID criteria was changed as well, and I think it can be problematic to use the term gender dysphoria for cases, including studies, that are referring to GID. And I explained why on the talk page. So when it comes to using "gender dysphoria" throughout the article, I think it's best to update the references (as in sources, not the mentions) with the text. If a 1992 study is referring to GID, I am not sure that it's appropriate to state, "In a 1992 study on gender dysphoria." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FuncrunchTo be clear on my involvement here, I have not made any edits to the Gender dysphoria article itself during this dispute. I merely pinged the LGBT Studies WikiProject and then offered some scholarly sources along with my opinion that using the term gender identity disorder does not seem to be in favor at this time. Funcrunch (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Blue RasberryPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I think this issue can be resolved as a matter of process without considering the subject matter. I see two sides - one side wishes for the subject of the article to be described by its title. The title is somewhat controversial, as it was set by a move discussion. I favor this side, because it seems right for the decided title of an article to be the term used to describe the subject of any article. The other side is arguing that the subject of the article be described by a term other than the title. I disregard all sourcing and context presented because I do not think this is a defensible position. Instead, I feel like if another term should be used, then the article could be renamed with due process or someone could create a new article with the new distinct term. Talk:Gender dysphoria#Changing_.22GID.22_to_.22gender_dysphoria.22_throughout_the_article discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Wikipedia:Biographies of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Javed_Malik_and_Haider_Qureshi
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | DRN does not accept disputes that are already under discussion at another dispute resolution forum, such as WP:BLPN. The discussion there did not last for a few hours before a case was created here. Please allow other editors to participate in the discussion at BLPN. If behaviorial concerns persist after general consensus/resolution at WP:BLPN, you may wish to consider WP:ANI accordingly. --JustBerry (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:L'estro Armonico#Transcriptions of concertos
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as declined. User:Mathsci had deleted this filing because they did not want to discuss. Since discussion here is voluntary, restoring this post but marking it for archival as declined to discuss. As noted on the talk page, a Request for Comments may be a next reasonable step. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Jo-Jo_Eumerus#deleted_Simone_Ahuja
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Please discuss at Wikipedia:Deletion review. DRN does not accept cases that can be resolved on other, more specialized noticeboards. Also, DRN faciliates moderated discussion between editors who have extensively discussed a particular content dispute on an article's talk page. As a final note, please understand that administrators are not online on Wikipedia all the time. This DRN case was created not six minutes after leaving a message on the administrator's talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Rolfing
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. This appears to be a case where one editor disagrees with the consensus of Wikipedia and of the mainstream scientific community that the scientific case for Rolfing is pseudoscience. Any issues about whether the wording of the article should be revised, without changing the overall conclusion, can be discussed on the article talk page, or via a Request for Comments. Editors are reminded that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are applicable to disruptive editing about pseudoscience. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A handful of editors are monitoring the Rolfing wiki page to ensure that it remain biased against Rolfing, and include the work "quackery" in the lede, despite majority opinion by active editors that this is inaccurate and biased. The citations that use the work "quackery" are evaluating Rolfing as a psychological technique, while many peer-reviewed resources evaluate it as effective for many physical conditions, like other massage techniques. It is classified by MeSH as a "massage technique" not pseudoscience, but these comments and edits are deleted as soon as they are completed. specifically, you can view the same argument being hashed and re-hashed in current talk page, and archives 4, 5, & 6. Have you tried to resolve this previously? initiated and participated in talk discussions. made small edits to improve accuracy. careful reading of citations, and explanations of the content in edit description and talk pages, which are discarded and immediately reverted. How do you think we can help? either by helping move the page into unbiased territory and locking it from edits for one year, or by deciding arbitration that the editors agree not to change afterward. by helping with a solution none of us have yet considered. thanks for reading! Summary of dispute by ronzPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by roxy the dogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Responding to Robert McClenon's comment, noting I have read all the thread so far, and will monitor progress on it. Roxy the dog. bark 22:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by alexbrnDecline. This has been widely discussed in a RfC, at article Talk and at WP:FT/N[4][5]. The editors notified of these DR are a subset of those who have already expressed a view and several editors apparently on the other "side" of the filer have been omitted, e.g. CFCF, Sławomir Biały, and Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. Thus any result here can only reflect a narrower consensus than is already reflected in the current article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by thatcher57Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by karinpowerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by jytdogPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by tronvillainPut simply, accuracy isn't bias. Even a cursory examination of the various sources on Rolfing makes it readily apparent that Rolfing is a pseudoscience. If present day practioners had widely renounced the various pseudoscientific claims and declared themselves to simply be another variety of massage, that would be worth reporting, but the available evidence doesn't appear to support that.--tronvillain (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AaronMFeldPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by markbassettPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
(summoned by ping) This again ? Well, I will generally agree it's run amok with overemphasizing and distorted portrayal of fairly poor sources. The article simply has given excessive WP:WEIGHT and prominence to a few isolated critical sources. I would hope that strong language required strong evidence -- but it seems that is lacking here.
Cheers 01:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Markbassett (talk) Summary by JzGAccording to the reliable independent sources we cite, rolfing is pseudoscience, based on principles that lack any basis in empirically tested fact, and there is no credible evidence it works for any condition. Devotees of rolfing who dislike this have tried everything they can to change the article, short of the one thing that will actually work: bringing high quality WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that show a change in the real-world consensus the article reflects. DRN cannot resolve this dispute because it is not a Wikipedia editing dispute, it is instead a completely standard defence of Wikipedia content against a vested interest in suppressing the best scientific evidence: much like the dispute between creationists and those defending our content on evolutionary biology, the fix is to robustly enforce our policies and if necessary exclude those whose deeply-held beliefs will not allow them to accept the facts as science finds them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Incidentally, the filing party is a WP:SPA with less than two months on Wikipedia, whereas most of the rest of the parties are veteran Wikipedians with tens of thousands of edits to thousands of topics. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CFCFThis isn't so much a dispute as single editors coming along every now and then and being mortified to find out that their pet-treatment doesn't work. Instead of looking at the sources they freak out and exclaim "Bias" — with a capital "B". There is nothing that Dispute resolution can do here, we will be forced to let this pass through the ordinary chain of events:
I wish there was a better way, but this is how just about every alt-med WP:SPA ends up getting banned. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Talk:Rolfing discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth
| | Parties came to an agreement/ filing party conceded. KDS4444 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
 Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Elizium23 on 02:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This dispute concerns the inclusion of a video and description of the practice of building an Advent Labyrinth in a specific church which has been observed for about 5 years. Whether it is a legitimate Christian custom or tradition and qualifies for coverage in this article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The original involved editor proposing inclusion has had two (now 3, that I just added) messages on his user talk page warning him about WP:PROMOTION of his favorite subjects. Elizium23's comments here are skewed at best. Elizium23 has referred to this as "sugar-coated heresy with a cross painted on top" and has attempted to dismiss any references provided, even when the editor has provided said references. The editor removed the content calling it a "New Age/pagan practice" and when asked to give proof could not. The references do not clearly support the claim. How do you think we can help? By providing a neutral evaluation of the state of the sources provided and decide if this practice merits inclusion in any articles, particularly Advent. Summary of dispute by Walter GörlitzI removed the video that was added by Urmelbeauftragter. When Urmelbeauftragter started a discussion, per WP:BRD, I started looking for sources and found some to support that this is not a regional or local practice. There's no question that this is not a universal practice, but it has been celebrated in many locations. A simple Google search for "Advent Labyrinth" shows more than 4000 hits. The first page is an even mix of blogs and primary sources. Elizium23 claims that one of my sources is behind a pay wall. It could be that Elizium23 is in the wrong country because it's accessible from Canada. Both sources clearly indicate that advent labyrinths are not unknown. They also state that they are not common. I selected articles from Christianity Today because it is a fairly conservative Evangelical publication, but I wrongly assumed Elizium23 was an Evangelical. It appears that that Elizium23 is a [Roman] Catholic. It's clear the practice is not mainstream, but then again, the section where this was added includes "a custom of Advent images" from Northern England, one from Normandy where children where encouraged to set farmers' fields ablaze, one from Italy, and an advent candle. None of these are mainstream practices. The first are very regional. It was placed there at my suggestion on the talk page although Urmelbeauftragter did not change the section as I suggested. I did that after reverting Elizium23's removal. I'm not sure why Elizium23's tune has changed though. Here there is no mention of heresy or New Age/pagan practice instead focusing on promotion. Since Elizium23 raised it perhaps the editors who placed the warnings should comment here: @Joshua Jonathan: and @Moxy: (my old friend from editing Canadian articles). I pointed out on the talk page that most of the traditions associated with both Advent and Christmas that are commonly practised today including the wreath, the tree and exchange of gifts were all at one point considered external to Christianity, but it is the practice not the origin that makes them Christian. While I too would like to see a more neutral discussion of the subject of advent labyrinths, without focusing on a specific practice, I don't think there is any reason to exclude it. Summary of dispute by UrmelbeauftragterElizium23 (talk · contribs) remvoved the Advent labyrinth from the article Advent because it should be New Age/pagan practice. In the article Labyrinth in the section Christian use he removed it and replaced it by a text telling why the use of labyrinths in Christian context is "the latest fad in spirituality". The way through the Advent labyrinth is a symbol for the way through the life. In the middle of the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg was for the last years the evangelistary. When the course participant or later the visitors of the church service walked through the labyrinth there is only one way without possibilities to stray off the course to the aim in the middle. The course in the labyrinth is sometimes near and sometimes further away from the middle but if somebody stays on track the aim will be reached. The aim in the middle of the labyrinth is the evangelistary including the Gospel. I cannot agree with the opinion why this should be New Age or Paganism. If I search for the German word "Adventslabyrinth" in Google I find a lot of hits (4770) like: Church of Scotland, Falkirk Presbytery Protestant Church in Heidelberg First Congregational Church Boulder CO Video about the Advent labyrinth in the Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg by KNA (Katholische Nachrichtenagentur=Catholic News Agency) May be the Advent labyrinth with candles like in the "Centre for Christian Meditation and Spirituality of the Diocese of Limburg" is not the most important one but it isn't the only one worldwide. Talk:Advent#Advent-Labyrinth discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer responseHi, I am KDS4444 and I am a DRN volunteer who is willing to have a look at this dispute to see if I can help resolve it. Before I get started, I wanted to be sure that the dispute is still in progress-- it looks like this case was classified as "needing attention", which implies it was started up awhile ago and is now classified as behind schedule (though the filing date suggests otherwise). Let me also be clear that I have interacted with User:Walter Görlitz in the past and consider him a professional and ethical editor, which is bound to have some affect on my thinking process here (by laying that out, I am acting to disable its effect... Wait, isn't that fun? "Affect" and "effect"? Anyhow...). I will provide further commentary shortly. It is New Year's Eve, so my comments may have to wait for a 12-24 hours. But I am here, and am glad to see what I can do. KDS4444 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Okay, I am back. Apologies for the delay, was under the weather there for a bit. I have now read over the discussion on the Talk page and have reviewed the current article on Advent. The article has a very brief mention of labyrinths in the last sentence of the section on local practices. There is no video at the moment. I get the sense that the filing editor would prefer to exclude discussion of labyrinths from the article altogether, and has objected to the presence of the video as evidence of a fringe religious activity that has no bearing on the subject. Of course, it is not for any editor to independently decide which practices are or are not heretical, nor is it Wikipedia's role to support or deny any particular view or event. What matters is does (or did) the "advent labyrinth" take place, and was it the subject of reliable independent verifiable coverage. Whether it is heresy is irrelevant. Whether it is New Age is irrelevant. Whether it is in good taste is irrelevant. Was it covered in appropriate sources? It doesn't appear to me that anyone disagrees with the idea that it was. Is it uncommon? Certainly. But it was observed at a Christian church during the Advent season (whether or not it was so used in the medieval period is irrelevant, unless someone where claiming that the labyrinth was actually used in the medieval era during Advent, which no one is) and it was covered in appropriate sources. Given this, I have to ask the filing party about the basis if his/ her objection-- if the objection is to the inclusion of a practice that the filing party finds personally offensive and would rather not see, or if the objection is to the inclusion of unsourced material which compromises the encyclopedic integrity of the article. KDS4444 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Pablo Picasso
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as abandoned. There have been no edits for more than four days. If there are still issues, they can be discussed at the article talk page, or a Request for Comments may be used. This closure is "without prejudice" because if two or more editors want moderated discussion, a new request will be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In the introduction of the article of Pablo Picasso this sentence can be found: Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments in the plastic arts in the opening decades of the 20th century, responsible for significant developments in painting, sculpture, printmaking and ceramics. This is not only arbitrary and arguably incomplete, there are also no sources given that actually support this statement. I brought these arguments to the Talk Page and extensively explained them, however no one is directly responding to them with counter arguments.
I explicitly asked for arguments, but none were given. How do you think we can help? By sending people who at least know enough about art history to understand that a bold statement like: 'Picasso, Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp are regarded as the three artists who most defined the revolutionary developments...' is absolutely ridiculous. Summary of dispute by ModernistPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To add:
Summary of dispute by ColdcreationPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Pablo Picasso discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Involved Editors #1
|
Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Question
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | General close. The filing party filed this thread and the thread at ANI at essentially the same time, which is forum shopping. There is no reason to think that the ANI thread will be resolved any time soon (maybe at the end of the month). If content issues continue after the ANI thread is closed and there are two or more editors who are entitled to discuss, a new thread can be filed here. For the time being, enough heat is being generated at ANI so that we don't need to fan the fires here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I did changes to the article formatting, mainly to remove excessive links (WP:OVERLINK), and I added a section in the talk page with some further comments on the article content and how it could be improved. Following a revert, we (me and Mathsci) continued the discussion on the talk page. However, that has so far not led to much constructive discussion, mainly because the user does not seem to be interested in discussing the issues I mentioned but ever keeps acting is if he owns the content and has final say over everything (WP:OWN) and he also keeps attacking me for not having access to the 2 books he says are "essential" to create content for the article, despite a comment from an admin Talk:Orgelbüchlein#NPOV_far_from_restored, which clearly states the opposite. I am not denying that he worked hard on the article or anything like that, I am only proposing changes to formatting and he keeps making personal attacking/questioning my intentions (and that of another user, Francis Schonken) and going off topic, which is (I tried to assume good faith, but at some point you can't look the other way), but at some point, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I've tried to remain calm and civil. This is the first step I'm taking so far. How do you think we can help? I'd like to have an un-involved party come and help resolve the issue we are having in a more civil manner, since my attempts don't seem to have had any effect. Summary of dispute by MathsciSummary of dispute by JohnuniqSummary of dispute by Francis SchonkenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Orgelbüchlein#Question discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Trust Euro_Therm
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as wrong forum. Questions about whether a draft should have been deleted can be taken to deletion review. I have not seen the deleted article, since only administrators can see deleted articles. Most speedy deletions taken to deletion review are sustained, but this is the wrong place to discuss deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Bryanturnerhca
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. This request has been cancelled by its filer. In any case, it does not appear to have been appropriate for this noticeboard, being either a dispute over deletion or a conduct dispute. Take disputes about deletion to deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
User talk:Malik_Shabazz
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been no attempt to discuss on any article talk page. If there is a content dispute, discuss it at Talk:Crime in Atlanta. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Rousas Rushdoony
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in the past few months. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Rousas Rushdoony. If discussion is inconclusive, a new filing here may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Russo-Georgian War#Text_removed_from_lede
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed for the time as premature. There has not been extensive sufficiently recent discussion on the article talk page. Editors should resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview It's two disputes in one. The first is about a line in the lede which I'm contesting. The other is about explicitly giving something that was said in a speech, which I think is unnecessary. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Only the talk page discussion. @Volunteers - I'm happy to discuss this on the talk page but please note, 10 days passed in which neither Toddy1 nor Kober responded. I therefore draw the conclusion that they're either not interested in dispute resolution OR they no longer object. Toddy1 reverted (without responding further on the talk page as well), which is why I'm here. I'm happy to put this on hold but if it goes another 10 days with no response from Toddy1 / Kober on the talk page, I'd like to reopen this. How do you think we can help? I don't perceive this as a particularly difficult dispute to resolve. But to resolve the dispute, it is necessary to discuss, and at the moment, I don't think either Kober or Toddy1 are willing to discuss. By bringing this to DR/N, I'm hoping this will sort itself out, especially with the help of an experienced editor's oversight. Summary of dispute by Toddy1The rule for DRN is that "The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN." This has not happened.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by KoberPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Russo-Georgian War#Text_removed_from_lede discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Ibn Tumart#Additions_reverted_by_user
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. An RFC has been started, which will resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview It's a well known fact that Ibn Tumart claimed and is said to have an Arab lineage. This was validated and reported by multiple sources. So, I added this Arab lineage to his article, but the user Aṭlas keeps reverting it and only wants to keep the mention of his Berber lineage (that I retained in the article by the way, asking for sources). Also, I removed an incorrect Berber name for Ibn Tumart, and Aṭlas is reverting this also.
I opened a discussion on the talk page of Ibn Tumart mentioned above, to ask Aṭlas why is he reverting my additions.
How do you think we can help?
I can't uderstand why his famous Arab lineage is not clearly stated .
Summary of dispute by AṭlasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My points about this topic are in the Ibn Tumart Talk page. I think that my words are clear and understandable. The problem in this case is is primary sources are reliable than secondary sources? As I think wikipedia politicies are clear, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (see WP:PRIMARY). This editor just don't like (secondary) reliable sources like: "The encyclopedia of islam 1st edition, 2nd edition", "The cambridge history of africa", "Encyclopédie de l’islam (the french version of EI)", "Encyclopedie Berbère", "Africa from the Twelfth to the Sixteenth Century", "Genealogy and Knowledge in Muslim Societies: Understanding the Past"....., instead, he's using primary sources (and he/she interpert them as he want) and unreliable sources like: "Mafakhir Al-Barbar", "ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر ", unreliable sources like: "Ibn Khallikan's Biographical Dictionary (english translation of the primary source)", "The rise of the Spanish empire" is more related to Latin American history and general spanish history then islamic history (or african history). Talk:Ibn Tumart#Additions_reverted_by_user discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Donald Trump
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.| | Donald Trump's article photo has been replaced with his official photo on the White House website. Dispute seems to be quite clearly resolved here. --JustBerry (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A consensus was formed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc that a specific photo be used as the lede photo in the article until an official photo was released. Since then, a photo from an official source and used for an official event has been released and is currently what is in the article. However, other users are insisting that we wait for an even more official photo. I am of the belief that the current photo is official for all intents and purposes at this moment, when an even more official photo is released, that one will be considered officially official, but until that happens, I firmly consider the current photo to be the official photo for all intents and purposes. However, despite the photo being, for all intents and purposes, official, some editors have edit warred against the consensus to use the official photo and caused the current full protection. And, as far as I am aware, all editors involved are aware of the discretionary sanctions surrounding the topic, including myself. UPDATE: It turns out, that is the official photo after all. No point to this now. Anyone removing the image goes against consensus unless a new consensus is found. End of debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twitbookspacetube (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? I, and other editors, have tried, multiple times, to explain that a photograph from an official source used for an official event is an official photo. However, other editors disagree and as such, the article is under full protection. How do you think we can help? Simply determine which reading of the consensus is correct and if the photo from an official source and used for an official event is actually official. Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The previous consensus can be summarized as "Overall, most editors expressed a desire to use an official image once Trump becomes President. ... Once an official portrait becomes available, there's a fairly clear mandate that among the discussants and through precedent that we use that image." The photography in dispute was extracted from the PDF version of the inauguration program hosted on the US Senate website. Nowhere in that document is the photograph attributed, nor is it described as official. In fact, it's not certain that it was even produced by a US Government employee or contractor, and may very well be a copyright violation. On top of that, a Wikipedia editor re-colored the photo, presumably in Photoshop. To so modify a photograph intended for use in an historical biographical context violates WP:V, WP:OR, and good editorial judgement. Aside from the unclear provenance and intellectual property rights associated with the photograph, what is certain is that it is not "an official image once Trump becomes President". Any speculation to the contrary carries no weight in determining if the photography satisfies the outcome of the RfC. If the administration that begins tomorrow at noon decides to adopt the Wikipedia-editor-re-colored photograph as the official Presidential portrait, then my objection to placing the image in the article is of course withdrawn. - MrX 01:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GoodDayI wouldn't be too concerned about this dispute. When the official White House image is released (which should be by the time the page protection expires), it will replace the current image. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rick4512Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RedBear2040My main issues are these: Firstly, as far as I'm aware, the current photo is supported by current consensus and it was being constantly taken down on the basis of not being in line with the consensus, being a colorized version of a black and white picture, and being visually unappealing in the eyes of some editors; and secondly, I and several other editors were threatened with sanctions over our Good Faith Edits, which goes against the final ruling on the case cited. I personally am not concerned over the picture used as, at the present hour, the inauguration is less than 12 hours away, and by that time the issue should be resolved. RedBear2040 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AnythingyouwantPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by VjmlhdsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MandrussPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SW3 5DLPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I second @MrX:'s comments. His explanation best describes what has happened. Earlier, I supported the photo but I also mentioned that it needed to be the official one and without any copy vio for Wikipedia. It had been decided a while back when discussing a new photo for the article, that the best thing would be to wait for the presidential photo if he won, and if not, what was there would suffice. When this photo appeared it certainly looked official, but as MrX rightly points out, it has a murky provenance. I was very surprised when I saw editors putting the photo into the article. I didn't think the question of copyright had beens settled and was dismayed to see the edit war and the subsequent locking of the page. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Objective 3000Patience.
Comment by MelanieNIt looks as if Twitbookspacetube missed a few of the involved users. Pinging User:Calibrador, User:Muboshgu, User:Ihardlythinkso, User:Dervorguilla, and User:GoodDay. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MarkbassettFollowed mention on talk page by Twitbookspacetube - I also object to the image. This may be moot as the image was put up for deletion 18 Dec at the commons here and [7] Meanwhile I will offer the following. 1. Procedural issues, appearance of WP:FALSECON - this was a bit rushed in, and have been multiple over-statements about it going into airports and such. I believe the prior consensus was to have the prior image until the white house releases something formal after inauguration. 2. Lack of provenance - it is not from the transition office or whitehouse, and was not posted as image file or posted in location making it clearly intended as a release, or what and where the base image originates from. It's seems scanned from a PDF and then colorized/airbrushed. We simply have no knowledge showing of what the original photo image was. 3. Not really a photo - since the pdf seems a composite photoshop of Trump onto a fake backdrop and colorized, then editors here photoshopped more, it's kind of a good artist rendering at this point. 4. Lack of clear copyright - it seems to have been assumed that anything on senate.gov is open domain, but that is demonstrably wrong. The senate may simply be making use of a limited use exclusion or a limited license on items. If you google site:senate.gov and names you will find that senate posts images from AP, Fox, CNN, etcetera. Again, without having the original file the PDF came from or where the original image came from, copyright seems questionable. Markbassett (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JFGPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I haven't been pinged but I'm very involved, so here goes. When the colorized and cropped version of Donald Trump's inauguration portrait appeared on the Talk page, I noted that it fulfilled the conditions to trigger the change of headline picture per the December 12 RfC closure. Consequently I switched to the new picture and added an update note to item 1 in the Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensuses and RfCs section. Little did I expect that some editors would argue that this picture was not "official enough" to replace the old campaign image that had been so maligned. In the ensuing discussion, I wrote:
Indeed I have a feeling that editors who oppose this admittedly retouched image are moving the goalposts and re-igniting a wholly unnecessary debate. In response to a comment arguing that 5 people in the RfC discussion had explicitly requested to wait for a "White House" picture, I replied: This situation arose from the initial lack of clarity on provenance and copyright status of this portrait, and from the haste with which some editors (not me) decided to close down the discussion. Given the overwhelming Keep opinions in the deletion request at Commons, it is very likely that the copyright status will be accepted and the image will stay. And obviously if an "officially official" portrait later emerges, we will update it. — JFG talk 13:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dervorguilla"Begging the question... The problem with the claim is that it's made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true because those grounds are in doubt." (Lunsford, "Fallacies of Argument".) "official. Governmentally approved..." (Black's Law Dictionary.) Talk:Donald Trump discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Trump_President-elect_portrait_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
– General close. See comments for reasoning.| | Closed. One of the two editors who were in the dispute has been blocked. If the filing party and another editor have an issue, they can discuss on the article talk page, or they can come back here and refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|