Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 96

< Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Talk:Bob's Burgers

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a debate going on concerning the setting of the show. I have provided information from the creator of the show saying there's no definite setting. Two other editors have claimed there is a definitive setting, in spite of this, and have linked to several articles by other people opining that it's New Jersey. They claim that since the info comes after the interview, they're right. I say that the word of the show's creator must stand until otherwise proven wrong, which opinion does not do.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

A report was filed by EvergreenFir at AIV and 3RR against me, and I filed an ANI report against him/her due to what I perceived as inappropriate conduct. I offered two compromises to include the information about New Jersey as the theoretical information it was, while keeping the factual data intact. This was rejected as they insist opinion be counted as fact. For the record, here is the interview. Note the response given in the first question. [1]

How do you think we can help?

By definitively declaring one way or the other whether fact should be overridden by opinion.

Summary of dispute by EvergreenFir

See the following for past discussions: AN3 closed by EdJohnston, a request for page unprotection closed by Ymblanter, and Talk:Bob's Burgers#Location. The talk page lays out the arguments for and against the New Jersey issue.

ChrisP2K5 has been engaging in a battle on Bob's Burgers and the associated talk page for a few days now. They only began dialogue once templated for edit warring and vandalism. ChrisP2K5 is convinced they are correct and is unwilling to compromise (calling it acquiescing [2] and that there's nothing to compromise about [3]). ChrisP2K5 appear to suffer an acute case of WP:TRUTH (at least what they believe to be true; as seen in their answer to "How do you think we can help?" above) and does not understand WP:RS. Despite multiple recent reliable sources and an aired episode placing the location of the show in New Jersey, ChrisP2K5 keeps going back to an old interview with the show's creator evoking a reverse "word of god" argument. They have claimed the newer sources are not RS (despite editorial oversight), OR, and somehow citing an episode and/or having a link to a screencap on the talk page is COPYVIO. I've offered compromise ([4]), getting called a WP:RANDY for it ([5]) and having my COMPETENCE called into question. ChrisP2K5 is so stubborn that this DRN is their last resort when it should have been their first.

Despite what they say, they have not offered compromise once until today. The original compromise was Fyrael's to which ChrisP2K5 replied "As far as I'm concerned, it's open and shut. This whole charade is useless." Even Mosfetfaser, who did everything they could to BOOMERANG me on the AN3, agreed with the compromise to which ChrisP2K5 replies "I do not support that because it still allows the false and misleading information onto the page."

Frankly I am surprised this editor is still unblocked. I haven't been a perfect editor in this incident, but I've tried to put my annoyance aside and compromise to build a better encyclopedia and for it I've been insulted repeatedly and told over a dozen times I'm plain wrong. Now that ChrisP2K5 has no options left, they appear to have come to DRN to at least get their way partially. Any other less experienced editor would have been blocked by now for being extremely disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. For a user that's been here much longer than I have, I am appalled. But it's clear from their user talk page they have a history of this sort of behavior. I am frankly extremely tempted to do nothing, let the PP expire, and watch ChrisP2K5 continue the to edit war and edit against consensus and be subsequently blocked. (I would have been much happier to compromise days ago, or even yesterday but the ANI report, false statements in the above statement, and subsequent behavior have burned a few bridges). But if the other involved editors want to come to some agreement, I'll follow suit since that's the right thing to do. Hopefully my mood will improve. PS - Part of my grump today is that a family died yesterday and we're going to her funeral this weekend instead of to the park with her like we planned. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fyrael

It's a bit hard to believe that this has come to a dispute resolution, but here are the primary points as I see them (I have posted basically the same summary on the talk page):

  • The show's creator gave an interview as linked in the description above that talks about the shows setting. He places it firmly in the Northeast, but aside from that implies that the location is a mystery. Notably, he does not say that the location is intentionally ambiguous. He describes it as a "semi-Springfield", which could mean lots of things.
  • In the season after this interview, the show itself displays a map showing the Belchers leaving their home in New Jersey to go on a trip. If this happened before the interview that would be a different story, but it happened after.
  • In multiple sources provided by user EvergreenFir, the setting of the show is mentioned as being New Jersey. I believe that at least two of the sources qualify as WP:RS: [6] and [7]

I had at one point suggested approximate wording that would include both the creator's description and the new information and I still think it's not a bad idea, but I see nothing wrong with the current wording, which says "in an indeterminate New Jersey shore town" (yes, this entire dispute is over those seven words somehow). -- Fyrael (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mosfetfaser

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

I did not try to "do everything I could to boomerang" User:EvergreenFir war report, the admin also noted that both users were warring and he could either block them both or protect the page, he chose to protect the page, my discussion there was to help EFir to see his warring and so to notice his violation also and the hypocrisy of reporting someone for warring when he himself was warring. Read that story here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=615231718#User:ChrisP2K5_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_.28Result:_Protected.29

The content dispute. I said on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=615259663&oldid=615254968 I support an inclusive position of both stories as per User:Fryael - We can just say specifically that (in 'add year here') the creator labeled the setting as a "semi Springfield" ambiguous East coast town, but that the show itself has since indicated a possible New Jersey locale. Mosfetfaser (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bob's Burgers discussion

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

I would like to submit that EvergreenFir is incorrect and exaggerating. Like Mosfetfaser said, he/she was not being boomeranged, just being called on for not acknowledging his/her edit warring (I still do not agree with the assessment that this was an edit war in the first place). The sources that he/she and Fyrael submit, while legitimate, do not offer any irrefutable factual data to contradict my source. They are opinions of writers and should be treated as such. It would be as if I found an opinion piece that Cheers is set in New York. Since the creators of the show set it in Boston and that was established by them just like Loren Bouchard has done with Bob's Burgers, I can't present that opinion piece as fact. I can present it as theory and opinion, but not fact. Just like any of the sources they cite because the creator has established a setting. I've told EvergreenFir he/she is wrong because the definitive source contradicts his/her position. The link to EvergreenFir's "compromise" is actually his/her response to one of the two I offered and stated relatively clearly that he/she will not consider my source, the show's creator, and restore the unverifiable opinions. That's when I filed the ANI report because it became clear to me that this was becoming less about my source and more about me personally (my past history isn't relevant to this discussion at all). When I used the term "acquiescing" it was in response to EvergreenFir's declaration of unilateral action. To me, that was demanding I adopt his/her position. I also never said citing the episode was COPYVIO. I said that the episode never mentioned New Jersey (and it didn't) and that attempting to use the screencap as a source was COPYVIO because it was lifted from something that didn't belong to whoever captured it.

The way I see it, I have done more than enough to support my argument with facts and they have not done enough to refute it with facts. Which is why I consider it open and shut. I offered a compromise where the opinions are noted as they are alongside the factual data I have, but no mention of any specific setting. When this was rejected in favor of keeping the opinions as facts, I offered to even write a secondary section with the theories, noting one in particular where the opining writer went to great lengths to make his deductively reasoned opinion that I found interesting. Again, this was rejected in keeping the opinions as facts. I don't know what else to do because EvergreenFir is clearly not acting in good faith and Fyrael and I are too far apart on resolving this issue. I am sorry for EvergreenFir's loss and wish his/her family the best in these trying times, but that's not an excuse for his/her conduct. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please no response or further discussion here until a DRN volunteer opens the case. Thank you -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer Coordinator)

Fresh Start: Core of the dispute

This case is now open. I'm letting everyone know in advance I will not tolerate any further discussion or comments about past actions or editor behavior. We are here to discuss content only. First let's establish the core of the dispute: The concern is over the location or setting of the TV show Bob's Burgers which is currently represented as:

  • The show centers on the Belcher family, who run a hamburger restaurant on Ocean Avenue in an indeterminate New Jersey[1] shore town, according to series creator Loren Bouchard. [1] cite episode | title=It Snakes A Village | series=Bob's Burgers | network=Fox Broadcasting Company | airdate=March 24, 2013 | season=3 | number=18 | episodelink=It Snakes a Village

Is that correct? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob - Correct. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Do other parties agree this is the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
What Fyrael said. As I said, I have submitted that the info is incorrect/inaccurate because it is gleaned from opinion based writings (editorial insight aside) and that the creator of the show said there's no determined source. The info I submitted on this is here and the argument against including it concerns the fact that the other data comes after it chronologically and therefore supersedes it. I contend that this data is definitive as it's the creator of the show saying this, and that it can't be superseded by the other writings because those are unverified opinion pieces. And that if I didn't have this bit of info I wouldn't be debating the info in the first place.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is the core of the dispute Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Great, everyone agrees on the core of the dispute.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

ChrisP2K5, has said in their opening statement that an acceptable compromise would be to "include the information about New Jersey as the theoretical information it was, while keeping the factual data intact". Can we find some common ground by exploring this approach?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems like everyone would be open to a compromise, although we shouldn't be calling anything theoretical in the actual article. This would be rather inaccurate, since the reliable sources do not frame the information as theory. New Jersey is simply mentioned as part of the facts of the setting in the sources. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I second Fyrael. Their original compromise was fine. Something along the lines of "The show creator said the Blechers live in an indeterminate Northeast town. Others have identified the location as New Jersey and the Belchers' car was shown departing from New Jersey in an episode." Rough wording, but something along those lines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And here's the major crux of the issue. I am not in favor of including the information about New Jersey unless it is identified as a theory. Because that's what opinion is, theory. I do consider the theoretical information interesting enough to warrant a separate section, which I proposed earlier and where we can expand upon what Loren Bouchard said and offer the opinions of the writers you all linked to. But to say that New Jersey is the setting is contradicted by Bouchard directly in that interview I linked to and you can't present it as fact because of it regardless of the reliability of your sources because the creator of the show purposely left the location indeterminate. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC::
Open to a compromise as my previous statements. Object to EFir's "the Belchers' car was shown departing from New Jersey in an episode" that is his original research and should not be included -The show creator said the Blechers live in an indeterminate Northeast town, other sources have reported the location to be New JerseyMosfetfaser (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the original research part (even though unfortunately much of that article is original research). I'm fine with something relatively similar to what Mosfet has here. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And Chris, if you can find reliable sources calling the New Jersey location a theory, please let us know. The sources I've mentioned on this page frame the location as fact. Choosing to label them as theory would be injecting your own opinion. Also, if you're thinking that the creator's quote combined with the other sources makes it theory, please read WP:SYNTH. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wish I had found this earlier, but here's a reliable source I just now came across that specifically says "The Belcher car is shown departing New Jersey! I think that’s the first time the location of the show has been specified":http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/bobs-burgers-it-snakes-a-village-93593
Now we can in fact use the wording EvergreenFir suggested just above this without it being original research. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Disagree that it's original research as it's just describing events in an episode, not interpreting them. Moreover, as Fyrael rediscovered, the AV Club article was one of the refs I used on the article (see [8]). Anyone else think it odd that we cannot and do not use sources for episode synopses on episode list pages? Wouldn't that be OR? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I kept looking on the talk page for other sources because I knew you had linked several, but I didn't go through the article's edit history. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I should have listed it on the talk page as well. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
All the sources you've cited to this point are opinion pieces. Opinions are not facts. A review of the episode is not fact, it is opinion. The Ocean City article theorizes the location, it is not fact. The only fact presented has been from the creator of the show. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course opinions are not fact. You seem to be having a one-sided argument with nobody on that point. The AV Club article does in fact give plenty of opinions, such as "Kristen Schaal’s exuberant line reading here wins a lot of points." The author also makes many direct observations of the material, including Bob saying “Wow, the red pairs nicely with the white” and the Belcher car being shown leaving New Jersey. Those are not opinions. There was no theorycrafting, no putting things together, no drawing on personal experiences. Rowan Kaiser saw it happen plain as day and noted it. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And I again point you to the interview with the show's creator. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
And again, that interview doesn't magically transform every other source that comes after it (especially not ones that appear after the show gave new information). -- Fyrael (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
To be more specific, the interview does not change the facts about whether these other authors were being subjective or objective about the setting. Can you at least recognize that? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, because the authors' opinions don't change the creator's intent. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

OK, there appears to be some common ground here. I think we could come up with some proposed text and, as a group, massage into a form that not everyone will like, but that everyone can live with. What are the reliable sources we are trying to summarize here? Can we list them (with URL links) please? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I made that last response without seeing you had added this. I would think the two most applicable sources at this point are
Here's some more, from my edits ([9]) and the talk page:
  • Character and series review saying "All of this set at a fledgling family-run hamburger joint in a gentrification-bound stretch of New Jersey": Escapist Magazine
  • Episode review for season finale saying "the heart of the New Jersey community where Bob’s Burgers is set": Paste Magazine
  • Infographic calculating cost of Belcher's home, specifying Ocean City, NJ: Business2Community
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose again that the info with the EW article be kept where it is and a separate section be made for the theoretical observations. Start it with "Although creator Loren Bouchard has said that Bob's Burgers does not take place in any specific state, others have taken it upon themselves to form theories as to where the show is set. Bouchard himself has said in his own imagination he would believe the setting would be somewhere in the Atlantic coastal areas of Brooklyn and Queens or in the northern portions of the Jersey Shore. His idea is based on the characters Teddy and Linda, whose voice actors (Larry Murphy and John Roberts) perform those roles with heavy Northeastern accents that he said would sound too out of place.
Bouchard also said that because of the architecture of some of the buildings in the town, some have theorized San Francisco is the setting. Although Bouchard was living in San Francisco at the time the show was conceived, he dismisses those claims because of the believability of Teddy and Linda's voices." After this, we mention the NJ argument.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Having a theory section section is completely fine with me. Like you said, you could include what Bouchard said about theories and the Business2Community findings. However, there's no reason not to mention that the show displayed the Belchers travelling from New Jersey, since a secondary source directly noted this fact. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
that should not be presented, reported as if a fact, and should be attributed as an opinion, which it absolutely is. Rowan Kaiser posting on A.V.CLUB claims that the Belcher car is shown departing New Jersey http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/bobs-burgers-it-snakes-a-village-93593 Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, we certainly have a ton of work to do if we're going to label everything that's been cited from a magazine as "opinion". Heck, we have thousands of articles to edit now just to cover the references to film and TV reviews. -- Fyrael (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. We're focusing solely on this particular article. You can dress it up however you want, anything mentioning the setting being definitive is opinion, not fact. And besides the point, the line may have started past the NJ-PA border but the car was stuck in the middle of a map abutting four other states at the start of the sequence. Which renders the assertion that the car departed from New Jersey unreliable- pieces of the car were in New York and Connecticut too. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, it appears that you do not understand WP:RS. While it may be the author's opinion, it's reliable enough to report in Wikipedia's voice. The only time we really start doing the "Mr. Smith from CNN says" is when we are adding potentially libelous statements, like on Jenny McCarthy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This case is different, though. You're saying that opinion is fact when it comes to the setting, when it to me is clear enough that the opinions don't override what the intent of the person creating the show is. Not only that, but in two episodes toward the end of the season, there's references that suggest New Jersey isn't the location. In "Ambergris", there's a vendor at Wonder Wharf selling fried dough. That's a New England term, not a New Jersey term. Also, in "Gene It On", Wagstaff School's team name is the Whalers. The whaling industry was never big in New Jersey but was in New York, specifically out on Long Island. To me, that overrides the entire Jersey argument and reinforces the ambiguity. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources (cont.)

OK, it appears that these are the sources we have to work with:

  • “It’s a semi-Springfield. It can’t be San Francisco, which is what many people think. It has all that Victorian architecture from San Francisco because I was living there when we developed the show, but we set it firmly in the Northeast because of the way Linda sounds, and Teddy. There’s just so much East Coast in those voices, we just couldn’t take it out. It would’ve been too weird to have her doing that voice — you’d have to constantly be explaining that she’s a transplant or whatever. And because it’s this seaside, past-it’s-prime, dusty old town, we kind of felt like that puts it pretty close to those Coney Island, New York-New Jersey shore parts. I grew up in the New England area, and there were lots of beach towns like it, though we don’t want to be in New England party because Family Guy has Rhode Island sewn up. But basically I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs or on the northern Jersey shore.” Interview with Loren Bouchard in Entertainment Weekly
  • "All of this set at a fledgling family-run hamburger joint in a gentrification-bound stretch of New Jersey": Escapist Magazine
  • "the heart of the New Jersey community where Bob’s Burgers is set": Paste Magazine
  • “The Belcher car is shown departing New Jersey! I think that’s the first time the location of the show has been specified.” Stray Observations, AV Club
  • "That place, and the location of Bob's Burgers if it existed in real life, was Location Ocean City, NJ: Infographic at Business2Community B2C

Do all the participants accept these as reliable sources (for the purpose of show location) per WP:RS? If you don't, please specify the source and cite specific text from WP:RS to justify your objection(s). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

While the Business2Community article might pass WP:RS (and indeed seems to be quoted quite a bit in other places on the web), I think that when they say "if it existed in real life" they are more posing a hypothetical for the sake of their calculation rather than making a claim about the show's fictional setting. That's my opinion anyway. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree that Business2Community is the weakest of them, which is why I wouldn't suggest including any information about Ocean City. But it seems good enough to add in with rest supporting NJ. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree on Business2Community's weakness. I believe it's actually the strongest of the theoretical RS pieces. I do accept them as RS because they are, but don't support them being included in anything but a separate section like the one I proposed. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so there is some difference of opinion on the B2C source so let's put that one aside and try to create some text based on the first three sources which everyone who has responded so far has agreed upon.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text

Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey while the show's creator, Loren Bouchard, says "I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs [of New York City] or on the northern Jersey shore."

Seems fine to me. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Basically what we'd already suggested. Seems fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as it's in a separate section, I'm okay with it. I would go even further to take out the mention of the geography in the description. Sort of like this: "Bob's Burgers is centered around the Belchers, a family who calls a nameless seaside town home. The family's patriarch, Bob Belcher, operates the titular restaurant which is located on the ground floor of a two story building along Ocean Avenue in this nameless municipality. Bob, his wife Linda, and their children Tina, Gene, and Louise occupy the apartment above the restaurant, which is sandwiched between a funeral home and another building that has trouble keeping tenants."
Then, here's how I'd go further.
Setting
Since its premiere, Bob's Burgers has not definitively said where the oceanside town is, nor has it ever been named. In 2012, series creator Loren Bouchard gave this response to a question about its setting in an Entertainment Weekly interview. (Insert semi-springfield piece)
The writers have further made the setting ambiguous. For instance, in the episode "It Snakes a Village", the Belchers drive to Florida to visit Linda's parents. A sequence involving the car traversing a map shows a dotted line beginning at the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border, causing some episode reviewers to theorize that New Jersey is the setting. (Insert sources to that effect here.) Further, a study done by the website Business2Community delved even deeper into the possibility and their research enabled them to pinpoint Ocean City, New Jersey as the potential setting.
However, in the episodes "Ambergris" and "Gene It On", references are made to whales and whaling (Wagstaff School's teams are known as the Whalers) which suggest that New Jersey might not be the setting (cite these here.). For instance, the whaling industry in the northeastern United States was historically centered to the east of the Jersey Shore."
--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm mostly alright with Mosfet's suggestion, although I'd like to add a bit so that it doesn't look like the entertainment writers pulled their information out of thin air:
As for Chris, I think we should really focus on the section that we all agreed was the core of the dispute. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The core of the dispute was the information itself. I have been against retaining it unless it is in a separate section and continue to be so. This is the third compromise I've offered that's been rejected, and I'm starting to get quite tired of it. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, you're not the only one who is tired of going around and around on this discussion. Can you explain why this information must not appear alongside Bouchard's even though it's being clearly attributed? Right now you're the only one demanding that. Nevermind, I believe I know the answer you would give. -- Fyrael (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
no problem at all with that User:Fyrael - Mosfetfaser (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Because, for the umpteenth time, it is OPINION and not FACT. I proposed the separate section because I feel enough of the opinion it is interesting to warrant its inclusion but the only data that can be considered fact is the word of the creator of the show. And he said, even though his imagination takes him to the Jersey Shore, that the setting is indeterminate. As far as I'm concerned, the information can be included as long as it's presented as what it is- the opinions of writers not connected with the show. And to me, the only way to do that is to have the separate section as I've proposed. If you object to that, then I have no choice but to continue to challenge the verifiability of New Jersey because the opinions of the reviewers still don't override the word of the creator. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this because it's becoming clear to me that you aren't taking this request for dispute resolution seriously. You can't resolve a dispute by simply going back to what caused the problem in the first place. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Still about WP:TRUTH I see... the entire source of this dispute. I do not support ChrisP2K5's version, especially not the WP:OR in the last paragraph. Note, you are giving your opinion, not describing events in an episode. That is the definition of "original research". Moreover, you offer 3 paragraphs that could (and is) said in one sentence. I still support Keithbob's version which is concise and precise. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Then we have a problem. Keithbob's statement, as is, isn't enough. It is largely a rewording of your opinion-as-fact statement and doesn't explain the creator of the show's intent enough. If my description of the events in "Gene It On" is OR, so is your car trip angle from "It Snakes a Village". Not only that, but once I supported the inclusion of the Business2Community article you trumpeted as verification, you changed course and said it wasn't good enough. I'm starting to believe that your objection to my position has nothing to do with the content and everything to do with me as a person. You've continually assumed bad faith because of my past edit history, you've used that same history to try to discredit me, you reported me to 3RR as an edit warrior, you refused to acknowledge your conduct when I reported you to ANI, and the entire basis of your opening statement in this attempt at resolving this dispute was a personal attack and your desire to get me blocked. Meanwhile, I've been bending over backwards to try and compromise with you and I simply don't know how much longer I can do this if you won't give me the same consideration. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's one last try at this. Here's my proposal.

-first paragraph makes no mention of the location or its theorized locale at all.
-section about the setting, with all the arguments for/against NJ (don't need to include the whaler thing)
-info presented regarding the setting in chronological order like Mosfetfaser has it, but with more encyclopedic content and description

That's where I stand. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Mosfetfaser and I have managed to agree on some wording. EvergreenFir, I know you liked Keithbob's version, but are you also okay with this other wording? -- Fyrael (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
And I guess I'm going to try just one more time with Chris. Your response was pretty much exactly what I expected, but the reasoning still doesn't seem to make sense. Creating a new section is certainly not the only way to present the New Jersey info as the opinion of those writers. The wording Mosfetfaser has suggested, "Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey", clearly labels that information as their own claim. Please consider joining us in supporting this wording that specifically states where each piece of information comes from. -- Fyrael (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser's is fine too I guess. Seems overkill, but if that's what it takes to end this... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Emerging consensus

  1. Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey while the show's creator, Loren Bouchard, says "I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs [of New York City] or on the northern Jersey shore."
  2. Series creator Loren Bouchard commented in a 2012 interview that the shows location was an indeterminate Northeastern United States shore town. [10]) Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey.
  3. Series creator Loren Bouchard commented in a 2012 interview that the shows location was an indeterminate Northeastern United States shore town. [11] Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey, citing the season three episode, "It Snakes a Village".[12]

Note: I've amended the format for the citations, otherwise it creates formatting problems as we have no reflist on the page. Thanking you in advance for accepting my minor changes to your comments in this regard. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia collaboration requires compromise. I think we are very close to having a version that not everyone will completely like but a version that everyone can live with. There seems to be an emerging consensus for #3. Can we come to a clear agreement on that?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Number 3 is the best of them in my opinion. One format note, I think episodes titles are typically in quotes and series, movie, and book titles are italicized. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Add the Business2Community thing and 3 is perfect. I still contend there needs to be a separate section with Bouchard's quote but of those three, 3 works best. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with #3 as well. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
So are we not going to acknowledge the other episodes where the apparent connection is made? Pretty sure there was another you cited. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I don't remember another episode being involved. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You sure? Coulda swore I saw another one in there.

Mosfetfaser are you OK with proposed version #3 listed above?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes ish - - I prefer 2 - I don't really agree with the citing the season three episode, "It Snakes a Village" - this seems undue weight to that limited reporting imho better to just not assert that claim - state the simple facts as reported - that the Series creator Loren Bouchard commented in a 2012 interview that the shows location was an indeterminate Northeastern United States shore town. [13]) Entertainment writers have described the show as being set in New Jersey. - willing to support 3 for agreement and closeMosfetfaser (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's really not "describing", though. It's more "identifying" than anything. Couldn't we say that the writers have identified New Jersey as a possible setting? Makes more sense that way. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparent consensus

Given that none of the above choices will satisfy all of the parties, 100%, there appears to be a maximum amount of approval and consensus for version #3. (Note: The consensus guideline is described as "addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." [bold added]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice: In light of the fact that a consensus has been reached and this case has been open for 12 days, I am issuing a 24 hour closing notice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Keithbob Thank you for your work and your patience in resolving this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
You are all welcome. Thank you for having the patience to go through the controversy all over in a moderated setting. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:47, 16 July 2014 (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.

Air India_Express

  – 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

  • Airplane54 (talk · contribs)
  • [[User:68.119.73.36]|68.119.73.36]]] ([[User talk:68.119.73.36]|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/68.119.73.36]|contribs]])

Dispute overview

I believe Air India and Air India express are affiliate members of Star Alliance just like united express is an affiliate member of star alliance. However, only one person disagrees and he is constantly deleting my contribution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I told him, he wont listen.

How do you think we can help?

By telling him to stop or to get people who acually know Air India.

Summary of dispute by 68.119.73.36]

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

Air India_Express 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.

Bhubaneswar

  – 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:Hishashanka has been adding copyrighted images to the article Bhubaneswar and received multiple warning regarding the same. Even, I have send a personalised message explaining him about his contributions which are in violation of multiple policies. Further, he is adding multiple unreferenced statement like, and creating laundry list which is of least value for an encyclopedia. The article is written in a WP:SUMMARY style. I am amicable to addition of newer information, provided such information is properly cited, written in a summary fashion and does not create a laundry list.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Yes! Explained the user on his talk page regarding the issues.

How do you think we can help?

Make the other party understand that such additions are in violation of Wikipedia policies and standards. And certain minimum standards must be maintained while making contributions.

Summary of dispute by Hishashanka

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

Bhubaneswar 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.

Alvaro Sobrinho

  – 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 dispute is over the addition of a section about allegations that were entirely unfounded and Alvaro Sobrinho was cleared of all related accusations a few months later by the Portuguese courts, after finding no evidence to support the claims previously made my the media. We have added links but the other editor is insistent that we can't remove the section

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Undone changes, discussed on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

We see no reason why the page has to feature incorrect information so would appreciate seeing the page without this section

Summary of dispute by Monart

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

Alvaro Sobrinho 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.

Hargeisa#1960.E2.80.931980s

  – 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

Talk:Hargeisa#Image_dispute

No consensus had been reached since February 2014 but User:Middayexpress unilaterally decided to use the alternate image on 20 June.

When I added the image, my intention was to show the detail of the mural but Middayexpress informed me on my talkpage that it is controversial. I see this as a form of censorship. I noticed the change and decided to revert the edit. Middayexpress then warned me about edit warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Help gain consensus and ensure that censorship doesn't prevail.

Summary of dispute by Middayexpress

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

Alifazal unilaterally added a WP:PROFA image to the Hargeisa page on 7 February 2014 [14]. I removed the image shortly afterwards, explaining on his talk page the following day that it was controversial [15]. A third opinion discussion was started a few hours later on the article's talk page seeking to obtain concensus for the first time for this image. The discussion ended the following month, with only Alifazal and one other user supporting the image. Myself and two other uninvolved users supported instead a full shot of the same monument rather than Alifazal's preferred shot of one particular part of the monument, which depicts a drawn male figure with a chopped off arm [16]. I subsequently edited the article accordingly, adding the full shot of the monument and indicating in my edit summary that it was per the discussion's denoument [17]. However, Alifazal today attempted again to unilaterally re-add the image [18]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hargeisa#1960.E2.80.931980s discussion

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

Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm a regular volunteer here. In dealing with cases brought here, we have a great deal of flexibility as to how to handle them. I'm going to handle this by giving a neutral assessment and opinion — a "third opinion," in effect, though it is really far past that — and then throw it back to the article talk page for further discussion and/or an Request for Comments.

  • First, let me say that I am strongly of the opinion that WP:PROFA does not control this matter. The lede of that guideline says:

    However, words and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers[1] should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

    I see nothing in any version of this image which could reasonably be considered offensive by the majority of the website readers ... that are literate in [English]. Indeed, the argument made in favor of the application of PROFA implies only a tiny subset of Wikipedia readers: "Outside of parts of the Somaliland region, the Hargeisa monument is controversial, as it portrays in heroic terms rebels and the Somali authorities as villains." Though it may (or may not) be a sad commentary on the World's English-speaking population, there is little doubt that the majority of Wikipedia readers are not sufficiently aware of what the issues and participants are in this region to have an opinion as to which side to support and, thus, which to be offended by due to the support given to it by this image. However, though PROFA does not control, that does not mean that the detailed image or, indeed, any image should be used here, it merely means that PROFA is not a reason to do one thing or another.

References

  1. ^ Here a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the website readers (not active editors) that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a broad spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely.
  • Second, I'd like to remark about the current procedural state of this dispute: At the end of the active discussion on February 11, 2014, the detailed version of the image — Monument in Hargeysa.jpg — was in the article. It remained in the article without active ongoing discussion or reversions until replaced with an image of the full monument by Middayexpress on June 20, 2014. There was a comment on the talk page by Mvblair on March 18 supporting the full image, but with no resulting discussion, and then a comment by AcidSnow on June 21, the day after the image was replaced, opposing the use of any version of the image. It is my opinion that consensus was formed for the inclusion of the detailed image when discussion and reversion stopped on February 11 and the detailed image was allowed to remain in the article for more than five months. The detailed image should, therefore, remain in the article unless a new consensus is formed to either replace it with the full image (or some other image) or remove it from the article altogether. Consensus-by-silent-concession is by far the most common means of consensus formation here at Wikipedia: folks discuss something, sometimes heatedly, and then give up and walk away leaving the status quo in the article as consensus. (In passing, let me note that I strongly disagree that replacement of the detailed image with the full image would have been the denouement of that discussion even if it had occurred at the end of the February discussion. At the end of February, the "count" was one for the detailed image, two for an image of the airplane only (not the entire monument), and one for a combined image of both the detail and the full monument. Even if you add in Mvblair's support of the full image more than a month later [which I do not believe you should; the discussion had plainly gone stale by then as indicated by the lack of immediate response to Mvblair's posting], that still comes as close to "no consensus" up until that point as I can imagine.) When everyone walks away from the discussion and leaves the image in the article, that's consensus-by-silent-consession for the status quo. What we now have, therefore, is a new dispute: not which-if-any image to use in the article, but whether to replace the current image with a different image. To do that requires a new consensus to be formed (and new discussion before assistance from moderated content dispute resolution can be had, which is another reason for this closure). That can be done through discussion on the talk page or the filing of a request for comments. Unless and until a new consensus for a different image or no image can be formed, however, the current detailed image should remain in the article.
  • Third, if I were to weigh in on the question of replacement I would probably side with replacement with the image of the full monument. There's pretty clear indication that the monument is a major feature of this city and ought to be included for that reason. I do not believe that it's necessary, however, as an illustration of the conflict which is adequately described in the text. For that reason, I would not support the detailed image as the detailed image alone does not illustrate the monument sufficiently as a feature of the city. I could weakly support using a combined image, but frankly I think that gives a certain amount of undue weight to the conflict element and overemphasizes this monument in relation to all the other features of the city.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (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:Adam Marshall

  – 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

Should Adam Marshall be added to the list of Australian politicians convicted of crimes. There's two options. A conviction was recorded. Or he received a section 10 spent conviction. The concern is failure to determine which outcome prevailed and explicitly mention this in the article could leave wikipedia liable.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We took it to the talk page. We discussed it at some length. We asked for responses.

How do you think we can help?

We need to determine whether a conviction was recorded, or a spent conviction order was made.

Summary of dispute by Hoary

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

Summary of dispute by Frickeg

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

Talk:Adam Marshall 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.

The Godfather

  – 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

Disputes over content: I expanded the page a great deal, then Ring came in and restored a significant portion of the article which I had rewritten and expanded for various reasons (my edits being poorly written, trivial, bloating, and his versions being better) He then insulted me on his talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to Ring on his/her talk page. I took this to the incident board but they deemed it in the wrong place and referred me here.

How do you think we can help?

I would like to have someone intervene and determine if Ring is acting out of line with his editing behavior and possibly get him to understand that my revisions are not all poorly written and can benefit the article. Also to possibly reprimand Ring for his comments about me and article ownership.

Summary of dispute by Ring Cinema

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

The Godfather 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:Mi corazón es tuyo

  Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Hello editors,

I am having some issues editing the summary for the English page for Mi corazón es tuyo. because a user keeps reverting my edits with poorly translated ones. Their version is a poorly translated plot of the show from Spanish to English (that looks like it was put through an online translator.). My edit is a paraphrased 2-5 sentence summary of the plot without any grammatical errors, and correctly translated from Spanish to English. I am trying to make this summary short and sweet for readers. What can be done to solve this? Every edit I try to make for grammar gets reverted to an incorrect one. A bad, lengthy translation from the show's official website isn't sufficient for a brief summary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I used their Talk page and made some comprised by added a little more information to the summary section.

How do you think we can help?

The article needs to be scanned and fixed for grammatical errors. I hope both of us can be satisfied with a summary written in correct English that gives about a paragraph's worth of information about the plot. It's a summary and it doesn't need more than a few sentences to explain the plot. Since the user knows Spanish, maybe they can write the Spanish summary for the corresponding page.

Summary of dispute by Damián80

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

Talk:Mi coraz%C3%B3n_es_tuyo discussion

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

Volunteer's Note: This appears to have been resolved here. Unless someone objects, this will be closed as resolved after 13:00 UST on 24 July 2014. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 23 July 2014 (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:Cash Cash

  – 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 dispute ranges over several talk page sections and has gone on for months; an extensive review of the talk page is advised. Currently, there is a user, 2point5ken, who believes the genre "emo-pop" should not be placed in the infobox. He has removed the genre and the accompanying references (to music review sites Allmusic.com and Pop Matters), and replaced the term with "synthpop", which he has footnoted with two Wikipedia articles. The current dispute is over whether either or both of these genres ought to be associated with the band, and what referencing should accompany them. In the recent past, another editor, LaurenCastellano, who remains heavily involved in editing the page, also questioned "emo-pop", but this was eventually resolved without the need for external intervention. She has not entered into the recent fray but remains indirectly involved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I believe the main issue is a misunderstanding of what constitutes appropriate criteria for inclusion and appropriate sourcing. I attempted several times to explain the unreliability of personal opinions about genre judgments, and the utility of reliable sources in determining appropriate genre. I do not object to "synthpop" being added per se, but I do object to the sourcing used, and previous edits have made sourcing of infobox genres necessary because they have been found to be contentious.

How do you think we can help?

External scrutiny is needed, since discussion has become entrenched and regular reversion is occurring. I come here in hopes that outside viewers can help both parties determine whether "emo pop", "synth pop", both, or neither should appear in the inbox, and what sourcing is necessary to back them up.

Summary of dispute by 2point5ken

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

“emopop” should not be listed on this page and corrected to “synthpop” for various reasons. Classifying Cash Cash using the word "Emo" is misleading & incorrect. The word Emo relates to band like Senses Fail, Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights. Cash Cash is nothing close to them. Their early releases were in the vein of electronica synth pop bands such as Hellogoodbye & 3oh3 which are both listed as synthpop on wikipedia. The sourced wikipedia pages pertaining to Cash Cash's early work, which is the material in question, are also listed as “synthpop.”

Regardless of it being ‘emo’ or ‘emo - pop’ When a researcher sees the word ‘emo’ anywhere on the page they are left with the impression of dark, emotional, depressing, or deep lyrical content either paired with yelling, soft light vocals, or even screaming. That is what the word “emo” evokes to music listeners because it defines bands that were hardcore screaming & singing about dark depressing issues / self inflicting actions in an overly dramatic way; this occurrence makes “emo” a very confusing & misleading word. Cash Cash began as a jubilant synthpop act that did some tours with a few “emo” artists along with many other bands of different styles including rap, metal, and even rnb; but that does not justify them to be listed as any of those genres. If that was the case we could call them Rap because they toured with Tyga.

Listning emo - pop is also a total contradiction considering the wiki definition of emo pop is “blending "youthful angst" with "slick production" and mainstream appeal, using "high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak." Cash Cash was known to have the opposite lyrical content making “pop” the only correct word in the phrase. Their early work was happy, bright & filled with synths, keyboards, & vocoder. Listing “emopop” is bias, confusing, negative, and a huge contradiction.

It’s also very negative & offensive to them and I’m going to elaborate why. Cash Cash was on the opposite side of the emopop movement. “Emo” stems from the word “emotional.” Bands like Dashboard Confessional, Brand New, & The Get Up Kids greatly embraced the term. On the contrary, Cash Cash’s lyrical content along with music strayed far away from emo given their “Bubble Gum” lyrics. Their first single was called “Party In Your Bedroom,” and is self explanatory of what they were about during that era. They were bubbly “sythpop” not “emopop.” Both genres are very different and should not be confused. Cash Cash doesn't deserve to have their reputation confused & degraded because someone is hooked on the idea that they were "emopop" because of an opinionated review. Wikipedia is simply not the place to list things based off of biased reviews or opinions. It's not fair to the group or researchers. Considering the argument at hand, I feel it would be smart to actually leave both off the page and base this section around their main official genres as stated by user: LaurenCastellano: (Dance, Pop, Electronica, Progressive House, Electro House, Nu - Disco) leaving no debate or confusion but was ok with correcting “emopop” to “synthpop” hoping that would be the compromise with user Chubbles. I’m ok with “synthpop” because at least it’s not a contradicting or confusing genre to describe their early stuff.

Summary of dispute by LaurenCastellano

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

"Emopop" is also not an official genre respected by retailers or music outlets and is a genre created by bias listeners…so whose to say whose wrong or right? At this point It would be best to keep the genres focused on how the band's material was / is being officially released as and not based off of bias reviews because wiki is not a review site or blog - it’s supposed to be encyclopedic. All their official releases through major outlets have been listed as either Dance, Pop, Electronica, Progressive House, Electro House, Nu - Disco. The sub genres that have been recently added are sub genres that the dance community classifies them as + how their music is listed in niche places like Beatport and such.

Allmusic’s side bar currently does not respect or list “emopop” under styles or genres because it was based off a biased review of the album that didn’t match up with the band. If someone wants to call the band “emopop” in a review that’s 100% ok but it’s wrong to use it in an factual place such as an article on Wiki especially since it’s a sensitive subject. Wikipedia is a place of factual information and not opinion, promo, or critique. Given both wiki pages of their early stuff, I have to agree that the correct definition of their early sound is “synthpop,” plus nobody seems to disagree about that.

Talk:Cash Cash discussion

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

Administrative note: Thanks to T-Man, all parties have been notified of this DRN filing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I left notice on the article talk page, rather than user pages, since all parties are making regular commentary there. But thank you for going the extra mile on notification. Chubbles (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Core of the dispute

Dear Chubbles, 2point5ken and LaurenCastellano: This case is now open for discussion. Thank you for remaining civil and limiting your discussion points to issues of content only. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the core of the dispute is whether or not "synthpop" and "emopop" should be listed in the infobox as genres. Is this correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to synthpop being added if it is appropriately referenced, and I believe that the current footnotes, which are Wikipedia pages, are not sufficiently reliable sources. Chubbles (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes since at present synthpop is not sourced and the links to other WP articles should be removed as they are misleading to the reader. What we are trying to do is first agree on the core of the dispute which to me seems to be the presence of synthpop and emopop in the infobox. Do we all agree that this the core of the dispute? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It is one of many concerns I have about the page, but yes, it is the principal concern I am attempting to resolve through this particular venue. Chubbles (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

24 hour closing notice---- DRN participation is optional so if the other two parties don't join the discussion in the next 24 hours I'm going to close this case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 23 July 2014 (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:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th!

  – 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

There is a dispute about Russia's ranking among other nations in terms on GDP. This is a content dispute, but is getting heated, due to one editor accusing others of vandalism.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

One editor went to Wikipedia talk: Help desk (not really the correct forum), and was told there and on his talk page that the edits were not vandalism. Advice has been given to go to this dispute resolution noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

First, an outside editor is requested to review the GDP data. Second, another editor needs to remind Gladio4772 (who was previously editing as an IP) not to make allegations of vandalism in this content dispute.

Summary of dispute by Iryna Harpy

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

I wouldn't qualify this as a dispute but a bit of a conflation fiasco. A section dedicated to disputing the GDP in an entirely different capacity was taken up by IP user 151.40.12.61 on 8 July [19].

The greater 'dispute' was initiated out of the blue by User:Crossswords on 3 July with this edit [20], then reverted by me a couple of days later when I noticed it [21], noting that the IMF is used for GDP, PPP and related statistics for all nation-states in Wikipedia. Crossswords reverted a few days later using a less than WP:CIVIL edit summary here [22], and slow edit warring began with his/her reverting other editors who recognise IMF as a WP:RS who had been reverting him/her. Crossswords continued with this behaviour, making spurious demands of anyone contesting his/her "bold" content change [23]. This culminated with Crossswords blanking the GDP section on the talk page [24], and I responded by reinstating the section and asking why, if the user believes that the World Bank should be used as a standard, s/he is only challenging the IMF for the Russia article rather than starting an RS/N for the sake of parity on all nation-state articles.

The section on the article talk page seems to have been turned into a catch-all for a two separate 'disputes', further compounded by input by a couple of anonymous users with dynamic IPs. If IP user 151.40.12.61 has now created an account as User:Gladio4772, I would suggest that the user has difficulties in reading statistics and doesn't understand assume good faith, being uncivil, or treating Wikipedia as a battleground: but this is merely the equivalent of disruptive behaviour and being pointy without even understanding what it means. The user hasn't actually edited the article as an IP or under a new user name.

The problematic editing lies with Crossswords who has done his/her utmost to avoid WP:BRD and has engaged in a plethora of tendentious editing activities whilst trying to fly under the radar. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of Dispute by Crossroads

Why only World Bank should be used as GDP source: First of all to the russia 8th or 9th debate the 2014 IMF data for 2014 is all estimates as you can see here, the green blocks are estimates not final. How ever i think IMF GDP data shouldnt be used for any wikipedia article about countries why? Because IMF uses outdated exchange rate for their PPP gdp data, the exchange rate are coming from the ICP which is a group owned by Word Bank in fact. So World Bank always has the latest exchange rate. The IMF itself uses these data from this organisation which they state themselves, as you can read in the following [QUOTE]The International Comparisons Program (ICP) is a global statistical initiative that produces internationally comparable Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimates. The PPP exchange rate estimates, maintained and published by the World Bank, the OECD, and other international organizations, are used by WEO to calculate its own PPP weight time series. Currently, WEO PPP exchange rates are based on the ICP’s 2005 round but these will be updated upon the release of the 2011 round of estimates. For more information, you can go to the World Bank’s ICP page at http://www.worldbank.org/data/icp.[/QUOTE] So baiscly IMF PPP data was from 2005 while World Banks is now from 2011 measuring the similar living standards of economies while IMF is still too lazy updating them, nothing they do so far. But lets be logic here Wikipedia shouldnt use IMF in the first place if their PPP data is depended on the World Bank anyway. Therefore it should be replaced by World Bank data as their PPP data is always up to date. Thats why you can see that IMF and WB have different PPP numbers, its because IMFs data is outdated in the first place as they use an outdated method to calculate their data using living standards back from 2005. You can even see that china is soon to overtake the US economy in PPP and variety of media agrees they dont try to challenge it by referring to IMF because they know the truth.

What Iryna Harpy is saying is also wrong, i did also use WB data for other countries articles. I did so with Cuba replacing CIA data which is IMF data anyways (except for cuba and otehr countries the IMF isnt covering), with WB data. Now is it like i am some robot and can change all article for every country? of course not. Also i dont like the IMF data because they openly make estimates, people constantly confuse what is estimates with and what is final as i have shown above in the link. World Bank will never make any GDP estimations, the recent GDP numbers are always only completed if the year is already over, this is how it should be made. Having estimates results in debates constantly in what should be used and what not, as you can see in the Russia article--Crossswords (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

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

I have no stance in this dispute. I've only been involved because a different editor requested administrative help with dealing a difficult IP (who has now created an account as "Gladios". ) All I have to add is that Gladios, as an IP, has constantly assumed bad faith of others, makes disruptive comments, and doesn't understand the concept of vandalism, or many other basic English phrases. That being said, I suppose he could be right too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gladio4772

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

WB data aren't the standard used for ALL nations in Wikipedia english.IMF data 2014 are the only one standard used in nations articles.(See USA ,UK and so on...).WB data referred to 2013 are still under revision so not definitive.Same for IMF.So World Bank data 2013 are estimates (they must be revised again-ISTAT for istance for Italy like all statistic centres for other states has to revise the italian nominal gdp of 2013,so how is it possible ranking Italy and Russia in a definitive way?) like IMF April data 2014.Many times are deeply revised and revised again also after the first publication (generally in Spring of the following year) when the year is over because of the accounting changes or other causes and this changes a lot numbers.IMF data and World Bank data referred to the nominal GDP are very very similar because the counting is mostly the same.So no chances to criticize IMF about it. In Wikipedia english the standard is using english and not other languages,so it's for nominal GDPS.Wikipedia has its own standards to follow and these are IMF April data 2014.We have definitive (these are the "true" final data ,and not the ones published in Spring the following year) data only referred to 2012 for nominal gpds and in 2012 Italy was same 8th while Russia 9th.In Italy article there's even a mistake about it (there's written that Italy was 9th as nominal gdp in 2012:WRONG ,it was 8th; i corrected it only Wikipedia italian Italy article).A lot of mistakes about gdps derive from dated writings or ignorance or other.

I suggested in the Talk to correct 2 big mistakes referred to Russia nominal gdp ranking in Russia article presentation and in the part close to the nominal gdp value (2092).The standard for ALL nations data and rankings are based on IMF data 2014,why Russia not?Why this exclusive situation?I've posted the official IMF organization site in the Russia Talk (if you need i can post it here again) List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal).Checking Italy article you can see that Italy is 8th by nominal gdp with 2,171 trillions and Russia is ranked same with only 2,092 trillions.There's the evidence of the 2 mistakes in Russia article because the 2 countries with different nominal gdps can't be at the same time 8th.Italy is the real 8th and Russia is 9th.Some people wrote me about GDP PPP,but i never cited it and i don't care of it.Lost time talking about it.CROSSWORDS uses GDP ppp just to say that IMF is worse than World Bank and people must use World Bank data.IMF have its own institutes (that in many cases are better than the World Bank ones) that neither WB owns so avoid to attack even international organizations.Other people realized the mistakes like IP 129....,but he justified without any official number the mistakes He wrote "c'mon.." just to say "let it go even if it doesn't respect IMF official data".Irina Harpy supports me in this and has realized the problem.She answers to 129.... in few words that my position is right.Honestly i'm not able to realize Taivo position.Nobody really succeded in showing i'm wrong.Sometimes i didn't realize english of other people (but i realize english of many other people in different places ;my neighbour is from Doncaster (UK,EU) and i talk with him very well).I don't like to write negative things on other people,i reacted only if i was attacked or i saw partial actions or i felt offended or bad feith.I can just say that Russia article reported Russia ranking by nominal gdp 9th less than 3 months ago and somebody changed it unlocking and posting 8th.It's impossible to see in the Talk the discussion about this change that appear like a phantom acting.TO CROSSWORDS : also 2013 data IMF about all nations aren't definitive and same thing for World Bank (so 2013 data of World Bank that is over as you like aren't definitive and so they are just estimates too ).Do you want to say that IMF isn't a good source about nominal GDPS?Explain this to economic world and Wikipedia administrators and editors.In 2012 Russia seemed to have overtaken Italy according to IMF but after the last revision Italy in 2012 was still 8th.So 2013 data aren't still definitive but just estimates like the 2014 ones.Wikipedia standards are based only on 2014 IMF data for all nations.CROSSWORDS expressed just personal opinions against Wikipedia lines and above all based on wrong points.I don't like to show useless posts to make impression to other people like him.I know them and they are useless to solve these 2 mistakes.He has NOTHING on his hands.Wikipedia official lines (and mine too) are totally different about nominal gdps.I'm costantly in contact with ISTAT,OECD and IMF and i can make also cite you their names.I repeat about official numbers of IMF there's a very very small place for arguing or fantasy.It's impossible to deny my STATEMENTS based on official IMF data April 2014.If you need more informations ask me.I beg your pardon if i used a wrong form in presenting it.Have a good day and thanks.PS @ CROSSWORDS:try GDP ppp with the 2013 exchange rates (why 2011 exchange rates and not 2005 or 2013?) ,they changed a lot for Russia and other states,in fact ruble fell like many other weak currencies.Above all DISPUTE started because of WRONG data of nominal gdp ranking posted on Russia article unlocked in a not right way .NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS,NOT OPINIONS.Gladio4772 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Taivo

User:Gladio4772 (under the guise of an anonymous IP) has been pushing the position that Russia's GDP ranking is incorrectly stated in the infobox at Russia. He originally pushed the notion that he would refuse to accept the IMF's ranking because he seems to fervently oppose anything having to do with the IMF. When we explained that we use the IMF ranking in all the Wikipedia infoboxes for consistency, he continued to push the anti-IMF rhetoric. His arguments have not moved beyond that and have included personal attacks. It's always hard to understand much of what he writes because his English skills aren't developed enough to clearly talk about the topic at hand. When he wrote "strong weakness", I called it an oxymoron, but he thought it was a personal attack. He seems to be very entrenched in his anti-IMF opinion. --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th! discussion

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

If anyone is still following this DRN which - inevitably and wisely - no volunteers picked up on, I think I've worked out what the problem is (despite the WP:WALLOFTEXT and personal attacks, and with no thanks to them).

There are two issues:

  • Whether the IMF is a reliable source for use in the fiscal sections of country infoboxes, or whether the World Bank figures should be used. As all of the articles for countries use IMF figures, for the sake of parity this is an issue which should be taken to a Reliable Sources noticeboard for discussion. It isn't an issue for local consensus per each article on a nation-state (as I suggested above).
  • IMF stats being used on every individual article (such as Italy and Russia) do not include their numerical status in the global economy. These can only be compared and ranked if every country listed at the IMF is downloaded and sorted for the nominal GDP, GDP PPP, etc. and are available on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) article, the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, the List of countries by GDP (nominal) article, and the List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita article. Those articles are not being maintained, and the latest tables stop at 2013. Unless someone is willing to update those pages, we really don't have any method of establishing the ranking.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

In IMF April report every country has its data.So or we rank every country by these data or we delete all rankings in all states ( i don't think in Wikipedia the majority of administrators and editors would agree with it).The ranking in all lists that Iryna Harpy cites rankings are given not by IMF or WB but by editors.All states ranking were well set by administrators for every country but in Russia article were changed without any discussion in Talk (vandalism).So should we delete all rankings in all states articles for Russia article vandalism?All states can be ranked by their value of gdp and IMF owns THE NEWEST ESTIMATED ON 2014 (WB HAS ESTIMATED only on 2013- I ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY WB DATA 2013 ARE ESTIMATES TOO) compared to WB.In this case Italy with 2,171 trillions $ is 8th and Russia with 2,092 trillions is 9th.IMF is a statistic and scientific organization.Who can deny it ?Before somebody must to show that IMF isn't so (really an impossible thing).So people must stop with relativism (that helps dubious acting and vandalism) and disruptive things.You must report sources that IMF data (and so rankings based on them ) aren't reliable,official and scientific.Otherwise you are talking of nothing. These are matters ONLY for people that really know this sector otherwise for people like me that studied economy is becoming really boring and disturbingI explained and explained ...but we can't last to say the same things for an everlasting time.Russian vandalic act about nominal gdp ranking (cited twice in the article presentaion) is in a cul de sac.Have all a good day. Gladio4772 (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that easy, unfortunately. If you look at Template:Infobox_country, rank is one of the parameters written into the template. It doesn't have to be used, but it does get used. Checking on the veracity is the difficult part, especially as intentional POV pushers and vandals make changes which can (and obviously have been) easily be overlooked due to high traffic editing. If there's no centralised record for the year, there's no way of confirming that it's been changed, or was verifiable in the first place.
This isn't really the forum to discuss it. If anyone could suggest where it would be best brought up for discussion, it would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No,at all.You must before show that IMF data 2014 are wrong and that countries can't be ranked on them.Russia has a ranking that doesn't own I derives by a wrong vandalic act may be done in good feith.Russia is 9th.Now Russia is an isolated article compared to the other nations articles.It must be corrected.No other chance.Gladio4772 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gladio4772, I have not been arguing for using anything outside of IMF figures being used. Please read comments carefully before you make assumptions about what is being argued for and against. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand english? IMF has the last (2014) estimates for all countries and WB not.All countries can be ranked on these ones like they are listed in the articles you cited and Wikipedia administrators and editors did it for every nation according to 2014 IMF data.Only Russia article was vandalized about ranking of nominal gdp.To do no correct Russia article about ranking of nominal gdp before somebody has to show that IMF isn't officially a scientific and statistic world organization.all other writings are otherwise trollying.Now you are trollying.Bye.Gladio4772 (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are an aggressive, foolish person who writes WALLOFTEXT tirades in barely comprehensible English when you could have made yourself clear with one polite sentence! I have finally understood that your one and only interest has been the nominal GDP. I would have thought you might be concerned with all of the fiscal issues addressed in the infobox which are not static but, no,you're incapable of writing one simple sentence regarding the matter. Now that I've managed to wade through your abusive, blithering, tangential indignation, I've redacted your gobbledygook to the incredibly minor issue that it really is. Here was I thinking that this much noise could only be about challenging all of the stats and being concerned about them. Yes, I'll change the nominal GDP to 9th so that it doesn't clash with Italy's 8th position! Now, please, trolly your backside out of Wikipedia and don't ever dare to presume that anyone will be prepared to discuss anything with you again. I'm serious: not a peep out of you again or I'll take you straight to an ANI! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (EDIT) Trout slapping self for incivility --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Russia is in 5th normal GDP as Russia is fighting the global economic crisis much more successfully than most developed countries are. Based on GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP), Russia jumped ahead of all the EU nations in 2014, including Germany, which is number six in the world.
Ahead of Russia in the top five were the United States, China, India and Japan. The World Bank data substantiated the IMF rankings published in late 2014, even though the IMF rankings put Russia in fifth place, slightly slightly ahead of Germany.

July's World Bank rankings of GDP adjusted for PPP further confirm the noteworthy level of the Russian economy, experts say. According to IMF data on nominal GDP, Russia rose to fifth place to normal GDP rankings.

So my view is 8th is not the truth, its 5th according to world data. --195.211.155.32 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN volunteer's note: Hi, I'm a regular DRN volunteer, but I'm neither "taking" nor opening this case for discussion at this point in time. I do want to ask a question and give a warning:

  • Question: Does the realization and agreement made in Iryna Harpy's last edit, above, solve this matter?
  • Warning: We do not allow personal attacks or other incivility at DRN. If there is one more uncivil word or personal attack here or, for that matter, any discussion whatsoever about one another or one another's conduct, habits, practices, biases, points of view, conflicts of interest, etc., rather than about the content in question, and this matter has not already been solved, this request will be closed without further consideration regardless of whether or not it has been solved. I'm not pointing fingers at any one person here, but at the situation in general.

We're going to presume that the answer to my question is "yes". Unless someone says that the answer is "no" before 16:00 UTC on 23 July 2014 then this listing will be closed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I second T-man's evaluation of this thread concerning personal attacks and incivility. Just to clarify: T-man is asking if the concession by Iryna Harpy that "Yes, I'll change the nominal GDP to 9th so that it doesn't clash with Italy's 8th position" has resolved the matter. We assume that it has and unless we hear otherwise by 1600 UTC on July 23rd this case will be automatically closed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
My apologies to Gladio4772 for being uncivil. Trying to unravel a discussion with so many IP interactions (read as arguments), alongside blanking of the talk page section and a slow edit war looming on the article itself to supplant IMF data with World Bank data (now in check) should, nevertheless, have not triggered such a downright rude reaction from me. I've now identified the second instance of incorrect ranking in the body of the article. As regards Crossswords and the IP below, I've left a message on the talk page about the issue not being a case by case, local consensus one. As IMF data is used universally for all country/nation-state pages, the reliability of the source would need to be contested at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Hopefully, this has satisfied everyone involved in the dispute. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna you did all possible.I just explained you the last thing in talk page about i was meaning with second mistake.I'll post my personal problem on my profile.I hope people wwill respect my situation.I hope we'll become not only cowriters but also FRIENDS.Thanks again).Gladio4772 (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing and disregarding edit which continues to discuss conduct. One more edit discussing conduct and this request will be closed altogether. If you wish to discuss editor conduct do it at RFC/U or ANI, not here — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Attention editors, Gladio4772 has been acting on ip hoping pushing the same discussion on anti Russian statements by creating new user names and pushing the same agenda (Russia GDP, denouncing Russia as a superpower, Russia kicked out of G8 and more) . So I am reporting this problem with Gladio4772.
See Gladio4772's history here[25] and ip as 151.40.13.125 for disruptive ip hoping on these same discussions, speaking against Russia in all ip’s I found below have been using. All the same editor, all ip addresses are from Florence Italy. I am reporting his comments as all the same wording slamming disruptive edits against Russia since 2013 that this is not effective when users like this are disruptive and are doing the opposite. See the links of the contributes starting July 8, 2014‎ - 151.40.13.161[26] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125[27], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82[28], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[29], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9], March 2014 -151.40.7.192[30], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30[31], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125[32], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236[33], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149[34], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141[35], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179[36], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17[37], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199[38], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218[39], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19[40], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30[41], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167[42], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93[43], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25[44], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77[45], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32[46], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170[47], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139[48], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200[49], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50[50], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[51], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[52], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180[53], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151[54], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108[55], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[56]
Gladio4772 you’re not fooling anybody with your ip hoping pushing on your anti Russian statements on the same subjects.
The facts again is Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe[57].
Here's the facts http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/
http://thebricspost.com/russia-ranked-5th-largest-economy-world-bank/#.U7x7oE1OXnM
http://en.ria.ru/business/20130715/182248723/Medvedev-Lauds-Russias-5th-Place-in-World-Banks-GDP-Rating.html
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-takes-5th-place-in-world-gdp-rankings/483190.html
http://www.bne.eu/content/moscow-blog-russia-overtakes-germany-become-5th-largest-economy
http://www.fundweb.co.uk/emerging/russia-now-worlds-fifth-largest-economy-in-gdp-terms/1075160.article
http://rbth.com/business/2013/07/17/russian_economy_becomes_biggest_in_europe_28149.html
--198.23.81.141 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Russia's GDP is over Germany's as the fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity bases of the World Bank GDP ratings. Viewing the World Bank figures show that Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $3.38 trillion last year.
Germany is now at number six in the rankings after recording $3.30 trillion in GDP during the same period. The United States topped the rankings with $15.68 trillion, followed by China ($12.47 trillion), India ($4.79 trillion) and Japan ($4.49 trillion).
Russia has moved to fifth place in the ranking of the world’s largest economies by GDP, edging out Germany. The World Bank’s GDP purchasing power parity rating is compiled in international dollars, which have the same purchasing power over GDP as the US dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. The GDP rating based on PPP is different from the IMF’s nominal GDP rating, where Russia is ranked eighth with $2.7 trillion.
Russia's Wikipedia pages needs a correction to 8th IMF’s nominal GDP rating and 5th in GDP ppp standings, there is an error and this needs to be fixed. (unsigned post by 64.129.3.150 08:56, 23 July 2014)
Anon IP, you are continuing to ignore the basic issue--that Wikipedia uses IMF exclusively to determine ranking for consistency. Your continued refusal to acknowledge that simple fact is the fundamental problem here. No, Russia is not 5th per IMF data. We have told you before and I will tell you again--if you disagree with the Wikipedia use of IMF data, then Russia is the wrong forum to make your arguments. --Taivo (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Fresh Start

Thank you, Iryna Harpy and Gladio4772 for returning to civility. I think all parties are aware that this case's presence at DRN is hanging by a thread. So if the parties wish to engage here in a moderated discussion, they must behave with civility and only discuss issues of content. If participants become incivil or begin to throw stones and personalize the discussion then this case will be closed and referred to other dispute resolution forums. That said, let's make an attempt to proceed. First we will need to agree on the core of the dispute. Can someone please state, simply, in one or two sentences, the core issue that is being disputed here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses IMF data for consistency in country infoboxes to rank countries by GDP. The anon IP/User:Crossswords refuses to recognize IMF data and wants World Bank data used to increase Russia's ranking from 9th to 5th. We have pointed out to him/her that Russia is not the forum for that discussion, but s/he continues to push the change at Russia without considering the bigger picture. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Taivo has summarised the nature of the dispute succinctly.
I don't think this should have been brought before a DRN as a behavioural pattern of blanking talk page sections (including the dispute at hand), and edit warring has emerged with User:Crossswords since his/her creation of an account earlier in April. While diatribes on talk pages are par for the course on multiple Eastern European articles, regular editors still check them in case there is some substance pertaining to the content. Initially, User:Gladio4772's comment on the GDP content read as an outraged attack, but was eventually identified as being a valid issue. As has now been established, Gladio4772 has identified as having bipolar disorder and was further provoked by Crossswords and (hopping) IP pushes debunking IMF stats as being invalid. I certainly suspect sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry at play here, but believe it should be tackled by taking him/her to an AN/U. As has been evidenced in this forum already, the IP hopper is continuing with diatribes even in this forum.
Ultimately, the content dispute surrounding the Russia article has been satisfactorily resolved in recognising Gladio4772's challenge as reliable and verifiable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. We have two things going on there:
1) The possibility that there is a conduct issue which needs to be handled at WP:SOCK or WP:ANI etc.
2) The possibility that all participants can agree to have a moderated discussion to try and find some common ground and consensus about which source to use for the country data for the GDP info in the infobox.
What do participants want to do? a) have a moderated discussion here or b) close this case and take the conduct issues to other forums. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
For myself, I would opt for the former. Amendments have been made to the GDP for the Russia article following the IMF data used for all nation-state articles. Should Crossswords (and the IPs who may or may not be the same user) resume their WP:TE, I will open an ANI into the issue of content. Perhaps Taivo would prefer to start an ANI immediately. If so, I'd be amenable to that approach. In as far as this DRN is concerned, I believe that it should be closed off.
My thanks to you and TransporterMan for taking the time to assist. It did allow for a lull in activity on the article and talk page and, resultantly, giving me an opportunity to go through the history of both pages in order to read through the comments with care and establish what the issues actually were. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2014 (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:circumcision

  – 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

circumcision is a locked article. Any edit-request has to be approved by page-admins. Not a single of my edit suggestions, some simple grammar, had been accepted. I'm a scientist and I know how to judge sources. Quality of sources in this talk appears estimated at will by the admins. Even Cochrane, Nature and Pubmed-sources are blocked with empty recourse to WP:MEDRS. There is no will to improve the article either through open discussion, improving edit-suggestions that might need improvement but are legitimate and useful, judging of sources according to standards that are not met by public interest into the subject.

The article is further mistaken and ruled as being purely medical while circumcision remains mainly a cultural practice. Even cochrane meta-analysis can be reviewed by philosophers, if the argument is correct. The common quality-management for medical pages is misfit for circumcision and can be used against proper reasoning and common sense, as even for the most simple arguments like grammar and contradictious content no other source is accepted than cochrane by the authors.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I discussed at length on several edit-suggestions. I asked for a third opinion which directed me to WP:DRN.

How do you think we can help?

Rereading the open edit-discussions at talk:circumcision by two or more third persons not involved so far and at best trained in philosophy, psychology or critical medical science and judging in extensive argument, if the edits are legitimately blocked or legitimately suggested or suggested for improvement. Further suggested is the opening of the admin-board of this page for more persons to guarantee diversity and quality.

Summary of dispute by Zad68

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

Summary of dispute by Doc James

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

talk:circumcision 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.

Minette Walters

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

someone keeps reverting an edit i have made to the page Minette Walters. They are acting, and have acted historically, like they are the boss of the page and what they say goes. I feel that the edit is relevant. They say it is not notable. I feel it is notable. No amount of discussion on a talk page will change this, as they clearly have a biased interest in the page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

none. there are no viable options - the user and I disagree over whether a particular factual sentence is notable or not, and I get the impression they are biased. i would like an independent view from a user who is not involved.

How do you think we can help?

i would like an independent review from a party who is not involved in the page.

Summary of dispute by MarnetteD

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

Minette Walters 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.

Historicity of Jesus

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

There is considerable discussion in Historicity of Jesus about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution, and what is the scope of "most scholars". There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. I have made a bold edit, fully referenced, which is challenged and reverted by a select portion of the watchers, without discussion, debate or assumptions of good faith. Please review to assess the possibility of external moderation. It would be appreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided a bold edit, fully referenced. I have tried to discuss my edits and references. I have written to individual editors. I have requested discussion of their concerns. I have asked for external review at Wikipedia:Requests for comment

How do you think we can help?

The editors of this article are a tightly knit bunch that largely assert a single POV, make claims about "sock puppetry", and refuse engagement with new text. My entire effort is to broaden the material to include the POV of other major academic disciplines and schools of thought. I do not think this is being heard. External moderation may help editors to listen, accept the validity of different perspectives, provide for a balanced conversation, and accept new content. One can only hope.

Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson

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

According to most of the citations in the stable article and related articles, the views that IseeEwe is trying to give (at least) equal validity are fringe and minority opinions. He has tried to justify this by presenting any sources arguing for the historicity of Jesus as inherently religiously-biased, with the only "neutral" scholars agreeing with his views. After seeing that we've had this exact same discussion with another user (User:Fearofreprisal), he made the exact sort of edits multiple editors told Fearofreprisal that there just wasn't any consensus for. After making his bold edit, his edit was reverted by multiple editors, which he took to be merely "local consensus" (even claiming that "Consensus is not required") and attempted to twist WP:BRD into "BDR," placing the onus on us to create a consensus (again, despite the previous consensus established when Fearofreprisal tried to push for this same stuff) to remove his changes rather than him having to create consensus to restore his changes. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Smeat75

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

Summary of dispute by Mmeijeri

There has been a dispute about the impartiality of this article for a very long time. It is not true that the editors who are taking part in discussion on the Talk page are all in favour of retaining the article as it is. Several editors including yours truly have argued for changes. There has long been a neutrality tag on the article, and I believe I was the last one to add it. I think it's unreasonable for User:IseeEwe to go to dispute resolution hours at most after a bold edit of his was reverted. In addition several of us suspect ISeeEwe of being a sockpuppet of User:Fearofreprisal. I doubt dispute resolution is the proper mechanism here.

That said, I do believe the current article is biased. It represents the views of biblical scholarship almost as if they were the "opinion of science", in the same way that other articles might treat the views of biologists on evolution. In my opinion this gives undue deference to biblical scholarship. Scholars both inside and outside the field have said that the research in question suffers from bias and unsound historical methodology. The historian Akenson in particularly has been scathing about this. Even among biblical scholars several writers have said many Historical Jesus researchers practice theology while calling it history. In my view the views of biblical scholars should be presented as notable opinions, not as facts and not in Wikipedia voice. The article should also give an overview of various other points of view, describe what groups of scholars have and have not studied the matter and discuss some of the objections that have been raised back and forth.

As far as I can tell there are at least two ways to divide the scholars who have weighed in on the matter: by opinion on the historicity of Jesus and by scholarly background.

Starting with the latter, we can identify the views of biblical scholars, views proposed by those who study Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, views by a handful of historians, views from several serious scholars publishing outside their main field of professional expertise, views from faith backgrounds, and views from antireligious or atheist backgrounds.

Regrettably for the sake of our article, very few historians have published on the matter. We do have strong opinions by several prominent historians that the issue is not in serious doubt by the historical community. Note that even Akenson who has been so scathing about biblical scholars does agree with their conclusions. In general, most scholars support historicity. Nevertheless all categories (even those of the religious background!) include a few, sometimes extremely few, who deny historicity.

Scholars who support historicity come mainly from biblical scholarship, with a very small number of historians, though we have strong evidence most historians agree with their conclusions, even if they don't find the issue worthy of a lot of study or if they have doubts about the soundness of the methodology employed by biblical scholars.

Scholars who oppose historicity also include biblical scholars, and former biblical scholars / scholars who have left or lost their former teaching and research positions. A prominent place among writers who oppose historicity is taken by several serious scholars from other disciplines, such as G.A. Wells and Alvar Ellegård. A very prominent place is taken up by nonacademic popular writers, who have been dismissed as crackpots and amateurs by some biblical scholars who favour historicity.

It may be noted that in the early 20th century the issue was taken much more seriously among various groups of scholars.

In summary, I believe the current article does a good job of identifying the point of view in favour of historicity as the more scholarly prominent one, but a very bad job of giving an overview of all the points of view, a description of the various categories of scholars who hold them, the history of the views held and of the discussion between various viewpoints, including accusations back and forth about bias, methodological soundness and academic qualifications. In particular it gives undue credibility to biblical scholarship by failing to mention the severe criticism of it by both historians and some prominent biblical scholars themselves and fails to properly distinguish between biblical scholars and historians and fails to note that very very few historians have studied the matter.

Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7

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

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

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

Of course, verifiable information based upon reliable sources should not get summarily deleted, however I have two objections: the wording is too categorical (it is like presenting the Truth instead of an alternative viewpoint) and it does not belong in the Historicity of Jesus but in Historical criticism, since it is a general point about the later, and does not exactly address whether Jesus really existed. So, it is not specific enough for the former. So my solution is: move it inside the proper article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To be more clear, the issue raised is one level of abstraction above the question of the existence of Jesus, and it discusses whether Bible scholars and archaeologists are on the same page or not, and whether Bible scholarship could be used to establish historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Huon

I came late to the dispute when I checked one of the references for IseeEwe's proposed change and found it didn't say what it was cited for. Upon request for a more appropriate page number of the given reference, IseeEwe made ridiculous counter-claims and personal attacks which I doubt they can back up with a diff. "I will not debate academia, scholarship or sources with you" is not an appropriate reply to a request for clarification when one blatantly mis-represented a source. I'd say it's not an appropriate reply on Wikipedia, ever. Huon (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

Uninvited visitor here, who bumbled into this particular discussion, but who has upset hard core Christian editors in the past by making what some see as the outrageous suggestion that Christian scholars are in fact the worst possible source on the matter of the historicity of Jesus. The view of someone whose faith demands that they believe is hardly going to be objective. Such people have an obvious conflict of interest, and should be not just balanced by other views, but actually ignored. Yes, it's a radical view. Feel free to discuss it. (But not me. That's what usually happens.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Fearofreprisal

Here are the events leading up to the dispute:

  • IseeEwe posts a series of sourced edits [58]
  • IseeEwe starts a talk page discussion [59]
  • Smeat75 reverts IseeEwe's edits, saying: rv non consensus changes. [60]
  • Smeat75 responds to IseeEwe's talk page discussion, but does not address the reversion, or his reason for it. [61]
  • IseeEwe continues discussion on talk page. Reverts again, saying: If you have a problem with the references, then go off and develop a consensus. Your voice and opinion are not a consensus. [62]
  • Ian.thomson reverts, saying: No, per WP:BRD, YOU have to develop consensus. It's BRD, not BRRD, or BRRRRD. [63]
  • IseeEwe reverts again, saying: Local consensus is opposed by Wikipedia:Editing policy. Wait for external review.
  • IseeEwe requests external review, at WP:RFC. Continues discussion on talk page.
  • Ian.thomson reverts again, saying: Editing policy includes WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which multiple users have told you that you're violating. Establish consensus and quit edit warring.
  • IseeEwe requests Dispute Resolution, posts notice of this on talk page. He finally starts getting a few meaningful responses.

It appears that IseeEwe followed all the relevant WP:POLICIES. Smeat75 and Ian.thomson improperly reverted his edits on the premise that he needed to obtain consensus prior to making changes. Ian.thomson improperly reverted a second time on the premise that IseeEwe's posts violated NPOV and UNDUE. (I suspect that they were working together, to avoid violating WP:3RR)

Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's reasons for reverting, besides being improper, appear to be red herrings. While I admire Smeat75 and Ian.thomson's contributions to WP, they, and several other of the users (some of which are listed in this dispute), are among a persistent group of editors who regularly use claims of CONSENSUS, NPOV, UNDUE, FRINGE, RS, and OR to suppress any edits to the article which challenge the Christian ideology that Jesus' existence is beyond question. (This is not an accusation - it's an observation.)

I do not expect this discussion, or even a formal mediation, to result in a resolution or any meaningful change. The users who are being called to task here are very experienced, skillful, and dedicated WP editors. I doubt anything short of an outright ban would have an impact on them. And they're way too experienced to get banned. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Formerip

The problems with the article stem from that fact that the existence or otherwise of Jesus is a question that, in living memory, has been of interest almost exclusively to Bible scholars. AFAICT, there has been absolutely no significant and reasonably recent examination of the matter outside of that context. So, the issue isn't about whether "mainstream" historians agree or disagree with Bible scholars. They simply do not seem to be interested in the question. That's hardly surprising, since the only real evidence available for scrutiny is the Bible.

It is highly misleading, then, to attribute the views of Bible scholars more generally to "historians". The fact that a (somewhat self-serving) source has done so is not a good reason for WP to repeat the error. The claim itself (that "most modern scholars of antiquity" believe Jesus existed) is extraordinary, and should require extraordinary sourcing. Since there are so many of them and they are all or almost all professionally silent on the question, how can any source claim to know what they think? We can, perhaps, confidently say that few historians actively deny the existence of Jesus, but that is not the same thing. Formerip (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus 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:Caliph

  – 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

1. There is a bully of a Wiki Admin who is threatening to block me unless I toe his line. He uses technical language to cut short any attempt from my side to explain anything whatsoever. He has now started becoming abusive by calling me "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED". When I explained why I am not prejudiced at all, he called my explanation "DISRUPTIVE" using the technicality that I was treating the talk page as a discussion forum. But he had no qualms calling me publicly that I was "RELIGIOUSLY PREJUDICED"! Naturally I took time and trouble to explain why I was not instead of calling him names in return! So what does he expect me to do? Simply shut up and let him get his way?

2. He is completely ignorant of how to judge between two edits in terms of both the edits having primary sources altho I tried my level best to explain how to do that also in what he pejoratively described as my "disruptive" explanation on the talk page.

3. In my view when the article relies ONLY on primary sources from both sides then the better primary sources win the battle. So, since the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources than they should be given a place in the article also as references. This person refuses to do even that little bit! He only wants his own edit with the Ahmadiyya primary sources and that edit even begins with a belief sentence and the word "BELIEVE".

4. He simply reverts whatever I do to improve the article and then threatens to block me if I undo his revert. He himself never makes any attempt to improve the article itself like I have done so many times.

5. He is simplistic in his thinking and does not know how to evaluate two edits.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is the next step after the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Explain to us who is right or wrong and why. The problem is very simple in my thinking and it is that my version of the article gives both sides of the issue and references from both sides and explanations from both sides and so let the reader judge the content for themselves. The other two editors are behaving as if they own the article.

Summary of dispute by NeilN

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

Focusing on content only as we are instructed to do here, this statement from Salim e-a ebrahim captures the issue in a nutshell: "So, since the Quran and the Hadith are far superior primary sources than the Ahmadiyya scriptural sources than they should be given a place in the article also as references." I've been telling him over and over again that we need secondary sources for interpretation. So, issues with this edit:

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and their Caliphate are considered heretical[citation needed] by all Muslim groups[citation needed] due to deep theological differences.[citation needed] The Quran asserts:

Mohammad is not the father of any of your men but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal (the last and final) of the Prophets. (Quran 33:40) primary source

Prophet Mohammad's hadith asserts:

Indeed there shall be thirty imposters in my Ummah, each of them claiming that he is a Prophet. But I am the last of the Prophets. There is no Prophet after me. primary source

In 1889, the founder, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, claimed to be the awaited Jesus and also a Prophet. The Ahmadiyya have been excommunicated from the Muslim Ummah. unsourced and irrelevant (the article is not about prophets)

--NeilN talk to me 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Peaceworld111

As NeilN has pointed out above, this edit (including the quotations) is irrelevant to the subject of the article and moreover it appears to be an attempt to give justification as to why Muslims are right and Ahmadi Muslims are wrong. Salim e-a ebrahim makes this clear "The problem is very simple in my thinking and it is that my version of the article gives both sides of the issue and references from both sides and explanations from both sides and so let the reader judge the content for themselves". Wikipedia is not a battleground and a means of promotion.--Peaceworld 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Caliph 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:Retrospective diagnoses of autism

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


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This dispute was sparked by adding the WikiProject talk page banner of WP:AUTISM to the talk pages of people mentioned in retrospective diagnoses of autism. The crux of the dispute is over whether it is appropriate for WikiProjects to tag articles that are widely speculated, but not confirmed, to be in a category within the scope of the project. More specifically, this case is about historical figures who are suspected of being autistic, but may have died before autism diagnosis even existed. Attempts at centralizing the discussion have not panned out, so major portions have taken place at both Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism and Talk:Alan Turing. The major points seem to be that there is no reliable source confirming relevance to the subject, which has been rebutted by saying that article text guidelines don't apply to talk pages, which has in turn been countered with accusations of WP:Wikilawyering.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been extensive discussion on two talk pages, with a request for comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. A section has been added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism regarding the dispute, but so far none of the project's participants have responded to it.

How do you think we can help?

In my (Muffinator's) opinion, the best way to resolve this dispute would be to propose an amendment to either the talk page guidelines or the WikiProject Council guide, one which more clearly applies to situations like this one. A weaker, but more expedient solution would be for uninvolved editors to offer a neutral perspective on how the current talk page and WikiProject guidelines should be interpreted and implemented.

Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck

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

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

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

Summary of dispute by DVdm

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

Summary of dispute by HiLo48

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

Summary of dispute by Trovatore

A whole bunch of people getting way too excited about not very much, that's my summary. Come on, folks. How much does it really matter whether WPAutism puts a tracking banner on these articles? Maybe the global solution is to make the tracking templates less obtrusive, so that people don't over-interpret them. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Parabolooidal

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

Summary of dispute by Malerooster

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

Summary of dispute by Martinevans123

Thanks for the invitation, although I don't regard myself as being in any "dispute" with the OP. I objected to addition of the project tag at Ludwig Wittgenstein since the article makes no mention of any such claim and because I do not consider the sources presented in support of the claim at Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism to be sufficient to prove any "diagnosis". If Project tags are used simply to advance further investigation and if they can be shown to have no effect on reader perception of the subject of the article, they may be grounds for using them. I will try and add a more detailed response here when I have considered more carefully the alternatives being presented.

Summary of dispute by Martin451

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

Summary of dispute by S. Rich

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

Summary of dispute by Fountains of Bryn Mawr

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

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

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

Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_96&oldid=1232500728"