Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 60

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Novi Sad, Novi Kneževac, Srbobran, Temerin

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Thehoboclown on 06:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Taboo (1999 film)

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Elvenscout742 on 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority, Talk:Palestinian National Authority

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Emmette Hernandez Coleman on 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

Talk:Campaign for_Nuclear_Disarmament

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Pelarmian on 11:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC).

Template talk:Nazism_sidebar#Parteiadler.3F

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by R-41 on 13:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC).

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Himesh84 on 09:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

Battle of Jamrud

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kansas Bear on 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC).

Talk:UltraViolet (system)

earl mindell

LIFT Productions

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 72.203.142.215 on 00:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Olga Korbut

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mjeromee on 23:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC).

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by RTPking on 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The mentioning of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh as the Second largest Film industry in India is being disputed

RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on Talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Please see the citations and proof presented by each side and decide who is right. RTPking (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening comments by Vensatry

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The claim is highly subjective. Second by what means? No. of films produced, revenue or distribution? There are a lot of contradicting sources which say Tamil as well as Telugu to the second biggest in India. I came across a few sources claiming Tamil to be the second largest in India [48], [49] and second in terms of revenue, distribution and star base. Vensatry (Ping me) 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh discussion

I can provide as many sources which state Telugu Cinema as Second,for instance

Most of these conclusions provided as citations which have been compiled by someone else's logic which may or may not be true, I suggest we disregard all these and each provide data backed by good Citations and based on which derive to logical conclusions. RTPking (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note (to DRN volunteers: I'm monitoring this matter as an admin, not an editor): Your suggestion is not allowed: we don't look at primary data and draw conclusions from it; rather, we go by what reliable sources say. As to the overall dispute, though, just because we have conflicting sources means we say nothing; rather, what we usually do is provide both sides of the story, with references, covering them fairly per WP:NPOV. Is there a way that the two of you could agree to this sort of set-up? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment about the two sources provided by User:RTPking: The first one is a paper presented by someone as a part of their research. I see no reputation of the person and he has never explained by what meas he claims the industry to be the second biggest. The BBC source is just a forum where many users have expressed their thoughts, lot of which were based on arguments from Wikipedia itself. Vensatry (Ping me) 07:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide as many good sources as you may need,

I hope the above sources would suffice.

I agree with User:Qwyrxian ; RTPking (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


Vensatry please mention whether or not you agree with Qwyrxian and mention your reasons. RTPking (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, i am a volunteer for the DRN. If I understood correctly the dispute is about mentioning Telugu Film Industry being the second largest in India? If so, let us understand that exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL) and Where there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution (WP:NPOV) which means that we can have a statement like while such-and-such paper said in 2012 that the Telugu Film industry was number two in terms of revenue, in the same year so-and-so paper said that the tamil film industry was number one. So this discussion need not be about choosing this or that. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly I need to mention to you that it is already established that Bollywood has the first place, now this disagreement is about the second place whether Telugu or Tamil holds the second place.

Please see the above discussion as well as the Talk page of Cinema of Andhra Pradesh to find citations supporting Telugu Film industry as Second largest, and citations provided by Vensatry in this discussion stating that Tamil industry is second largest. My question is Vensatry has provided citations of the same news paper {The Hindu} for stating Tamil holding second position which also states Telugu as Second largest, but yet he want it mentioned in Tamil cinema but opposes being mentioned on Cinema of andhra Pradesh I suggest both articles mention this information and also the details that the other cine industry is also considered second simulateanously. I request Vensatry to comment whether he agrees to this solution, the same which User:Qwyrxian proposed. RTPking (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a contentious statement which can be proven either way with the help of reliable sorces we may do one of the following
  1. Delete the material in question and say nothing.
  2. Keep the material and place both poisitions in the article with reliable sources (as I have illustrated before). This can be done even with the hinkdu as a source as the newspaper ranked both film industries at different and hence, the statement about the telugu film industry being he second largest film industry can be qualified accordingly. -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
None of the sources provided by RTPking explicitly say by what means the industry is second largest. The sources might mean that the industry is second largest in terms of films produced annually. But size of the industry with respect to revenue or world-wide distribution is unclear. I've provided sources stating that the Tamil film industry is second biggest in terms of revenue. I'd suggest we remove the claims altogether from both the pages to avoid conflicts. Vensatry (Ping me) 07:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
RTPking, are you OK with the compromise? We can split hair here and quote Hindu articles to say something like according to The Hindu in the year 20xx tamil film industry was number two while in the year 20yy Telugu film industry... but that would simply confuse readers and invite debate about The Hindu as WP:RS as I have not found any reliable source that says how the Hindu comes to these conclusions. -Wikishagnik (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Wikishagnik that both articles mention that they are Second largest film industry in India, providing the sources this is a good way to compromise. RTPking (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
RTPking, I think you've misunderstood Wikishagnik. His recommendation is the same as Vesantry's: that we don't say either one is the "second largest". Do you actually agree with not mentioning anything about second largest? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No do not agree on not mentioning on both articles, if there is information available it should be made visible on wikipedia on both articles, stating each of them are considered second largest and provide the sources. RTPking (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Jenova20 on 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the addition of 2-3 lines detailing a controversy of a newspaper accidentally publishing the wrong article. Readers noticed that not only was it the wrong verdict in a court case, but that the publisher had made fake quotes and a further claim of a suicide watch order being placed on one person. This is reliably cited and User:Collect keeps removing all mention to the actual controversy, leaving only a biased statement playing down the incident as something a few other publications did. Not only do i find this incredibly biased protectionism, but it also removes the controversy aimed at the Mail Online. Further he has accused me of BLP violations for restoring it once as "censorship" with no discussion before hand (even though there is one on the talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion going nowhere fast

How do you think we can help?

Deciding on appropriate wording of the section or clarifying if it should just state that there was a controversy, but nothing other rival publications didn't do (a biased and incorrect fact currently stated)

Opening comments by Collect

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

This is a "misuse of sources dispute" on two claims.

First is a claim whcih implies that the MO "published" an article with falsehoods therein, and did not remove it - where the "article" was visible online for all of a half hour and appears to have been a routine "placeholder" whose significance is being overstated by the wording of the claim made. I sought to have the claim represent what the source actually states as fact.

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, based on a possible upholding of the guilty verdict. The articles remained online until the announcememt of the reversal of the guilty verdict is a reasonable statement of the facts as presented in the sources given.

The second is a complete misuse of a source "Poynter" where I went to what the original source states.

In March 2012, Poynter published an article saying the MailOnline did not always attribute stories from other sources. Martin Clarke, editor of MailOnline said "We will soon be introducing features that will allow us to link easily and prominently to other sites when further recognition of source material is needed is a reasonable and proper statement of what the source actually states.


This is thus a dispute over how far a Wikipedia claim may misstate what a source says, and should be at WP:RS/N if the proponent really feels that the claim as that editor worded it is supportable by the source. Collect (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: The wrong article was online for all of 90 seconds according to strong reliable sources. The sources cited make clear that this was true of several newspapers, making that cavil errant. I do not think that using what the sources say is "biased" nor did I "remove criticism" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mail Online discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. A look at the talk page of the article suggests that there are a number of other editors involved in this dispute, most notably Dreamyshade, Pscorp19, and Christian1985 but there may be others as well. Is there some reason why they should not be included here and notified on their talk pages? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- but I suggest that the consensus on that article talk page makes this DRN moot. All editors but one agree on the wording I proposed as being neutral and BLP-compliant. Collect (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I was notified on my talk page, and it looks like those other two editors were notified as well. For context, I started looking at this article after seeing a request on WP:3O. I'm OK with Collect's changes. There's a larger disagreement on the talk page about how to cover critical material, but since the article now has attention from multiple editors, we can hopefully work it out via talk page discussion. If that doesn't seem to be working, it could be helpful to have a dispute resolution discussion about the larger disagreement, not just a couple details. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Update: I posted to the talk page with a suggested revision to improve the clarity of the Knox sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The other editors were notified well before you posted TransportMan, i just didn't see them as essential to this as at the time it was a disagreement mainly between me and Collect over censorship of information and is now over protecting the Mail Online from any criticism at all, no matter how much coverage it gets or how significant. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is evident - I try to maintain WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and get accused of "censorship" and "protecting the Mail OnLine from any criticism at all" which is a fatuous argument entirely. The "big issue" is how much weight to attach to a placeholder story accidentally released for 90 seconds online, and whether to say the MO "fabricated" the story in a lengthy paragraph. I suggest that a brief mention avoids UNDUE and POV issues. Jenova apparently feels that the claim of "fabrication" must be made in as lengthy manner a possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no BLP violation, that's a crap argument from the Conservative wikiproject, which Lionelt used to use for the removal of information from Ex-gay articles, and which you are using to remove anything about a well sourced and reliably sourced criticism of the Mail Online making up a story in preparation and publishing it at the wrong verdict. This was caught and reported. Making your RS and BLP tags a smokescreen to remove the controversy, and instead wording the section to praise the Mail Online (That's the best one yet, while claiming the other wordings proposed are biased or undue weight).
The problem still persists between the me and Collect, but more opinions are welcome. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
And i like your "lengthy paragraph" part, especially as my wording only adds 3 words to the one proposed by the third opinion (Dreamyshade) and your wording is longer than that!
My preferred wording:
  • In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".
Collect's:
  • In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers accidentally released placeholder articles based on a possible guilty verdict in the Amanda Knox case. The Mail Online article was viewable for about 90 seconds, before being replaced with the article prepared for a "not guilty" verdict. The Mail OnLine apologized, and was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint. The PCC said 'It also welcomed the swiftness of the newspaper's response and its decision to examine its procedures in light of the events.
Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Jenova20's preferred version looks much more balanced, staying much truer to the source. Collect's version misdirects the reader toward a positive spin, misinterpreting the sources which are mainly negative. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The aim is to actually obey WP:NPOV and my "version" on the talk page quotes the PCC directly -- which I suggest is a good way to avoid POV wording. That you see NPOV as "positive spin" I find quite amazing, as I did Jenova's overt claim that I have a COI on the talk page. The PCC said that the actions taken to prevent any recurrence were commendable, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I posted to the talk page: The thing I'm seeing is that the MailOnline article was unusual enough for the PCC to go through the process of upholding a complaint about it, unlike the errors published by the other newspapers. If the MailOnline had published a brief prepared story reporting on the guilty verdict as if it had happened, this wouldn't have been particularly notable; the problem was that the MailOnline included "colourful" speculative details as well. I think these links show that reliable sources didn't consider it routine. The PCC complaint was not heavy though, balancing a reprimand for the story and details with an acknowledgement of removing it quickly and apologizing, so I want to include it but not overstate it.

Looking at Jenova20's modification of my proposal, I believe saying "fictional" quotes isn't supported by the sources, and the added "fictional quotes" phrase is somewhat redundant with saying "reactions that had not taken place".

Thanks to Collect for writing a proposal too, since it's easier to discuss this with specifics instead of abstractions. Here's what I said on the talk page explaining that I prefer my proposal: I believe saying "accidentally" and "possible guilty verdict" also isn't quite supported by the sources; according to the "quotes that seemed useful to me for reference on what happened" above, the articles were published on purpose since the newspapers thought a guilty verdict had happened - they were just mistakes. Is the term "set and hold" familiar to most UK readers, or do we need to define that if we use it? (I'm in the US and hadn't heard the term before looking at these sources.) It's also important to be clear that this event was about the appeal's upholding or reversal of the guilty verdict, not the original guilty verdict. I think we should also briefly summarize the PCC complaint instead of quoting part of it, to help with due weight.

Here's another attempt that tries to include the PCC complaint's positive elements:

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

It's getting a little long, but we do have eight secondary sources to support it: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, Collect and I agreed on this version, with changes from "temporarily" to "prematurely" and "prepared" to "standby":

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers prematurely published standby articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.

Jenova20, what do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and put that proposed version into the article. It's similar to the version Jenova20 preferred above, so hopefully this resolves the dispute. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't support any version which gives the excuse of the Mail Online but doesn't mention what the controversy was - creating fictional quotes and/or making up claims of Amanda on suicide watch. These are the issues people complained about, not that the wrong article was up for 90 seconds. What is the actual point of saying there was a complaint and the mail apologised when the reader can click the reference, see it, think "oh, that's quite bad", and wonder why Wikipedia instead reports on it as though it's a department of the Mail Online? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Also the 90 second part is an excuse from the Mail Online, not a definite fact. It is actually disputed by a few commentators and so its inclusion is controversial if not explained.Source 1Source 2Source 3
And for anyone who disputes the made up quotes still:
Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that "justice has been done" although they said on a "human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail"
There's some quotes. Did they happen or were they made up? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Whatculture also uses "personal blogs" per its solicitation for anyone to write for it. DigitalSpy says it was "swiftly deleted". WaPo says that an "Irish blogger" said it was online for some time - but bloggers != reliable sources. Thus you have precisely ZERO reliable sources for it being anything other than "swiftly deleted" (DigitalSpy). Thanks for showing the paucity of evidence that it was not removed swiftly. Collect (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's keep trying to figure out a compromise. Like I said on the talk page, the question is whether the quotes and suicide watch detail are remarkable/notable enough to qualify for weight in the article. The suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue.
The quotes part is disputed by the Mail, so we can't simply say "fictional quotes" - this Press Gazette article says "According to a Mail insider, the quotes from the prosecutor were obtained in advance", and this later Press Gazette article says "According to the PCC, in its defence the paper said that the quotes had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial 'to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected"".
That Washington Post source is helpful. How about "within minutes" instead of "within 90 seconds"? That's vague enough to cover both the Mail's claim and other people's claims. I also added "and quotes" since a number of the sources did comment specifically on the quotes:
In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within minutes and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions and quotes that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.
Dreamyshade (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The Mail Online's defence of 90 seconds is argued against by others. If we report their figure, then for balance we need that it is disputed. Here is the version as it currently stands after i added tro it and removed colourful defences of the Mail, which were just opinion, and not factual:
In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial prematurely. The articles reported an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge had finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict.[1][2][3][4] MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources[5][6][7], and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of events and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error. The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false.[8][9][10][11]
  1. ^ "Daily Mail inquiry into 'Knox guilty' blunder". PressGazette. 4 October 2011. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  2. ^ Joel Gunter (4 October 2011). "Daily Mail criticised over Amanda Knox guilty story". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  3. ^ Stuart Kemp (3 October 2011). "Amanda Knox Verdict: Daily Mail’s Website Posts Wrong Decision". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  4. ^ Greenslade, Roy (4 October 2011). "The Guardian on the false Mail Online Amanda Knox verdict". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  5. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/amanda-knox-initially-declared-guilty-by-daily-mail-the-sun/2011/10/04/gIQAXtrlKL_blog.html
  6. ^ http://whatculture.com/news/daily-mail-announce-amanda-knox-as-guilty-in-appeal.php
  7. ^ http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a343745/daily-mail-launches-inquiry-into-guilty-amanda-knox-gaffe.html
  8. ^ "Mail Online censured over 'Amanda Knox guilty' story". Press Gazette. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  9. ^ Rachel McAthy (12 December 2011). "PCC censures Mail Online for Knox verdict report". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  10. ^ Andrew Beaujon (10 May 2012). "Daily Mail spanked for fabricating Amanda Knox story". Poynter. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  11. ^ Roy Greenslade (9 December 2011). "Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict". Greensdale Blog. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
Thanks Jenova20 (email) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you be specific about which parts you considered not supported by the sources ("just opinion, and not factual")?
Your text of "MailOnline claims to have removed the article within 90 seconds, although this is disputed by other news sources" is less concise than saying "MailOnline removed the article within minutes", and this text needs to be concise to maintain due weight.
Changing "prematurely published standby articles" to "published prepared articles" brings back the problems that Collect and I discussed on the talk page - see "All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another" and "use "prematurely" to indicate that the articles were released before the paper could actually know the verdict". Your edit summary said "less excuses for what it was", but the previous wording was more clear about what happened.
Changing "reporting of reactions" to "reporting of events and reactions" is confusing to me - my intent with saying "reactions" was to cover the reported events, quotes, and other details. Maybe that's not sufficiently clear? In any case, my suggestion above is to change this to "reporting of reactions and quotes" since the sources seem to agree that the quotes were important.
Adding "The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false." puts undue weight on that detail according to my review of the sources, as I've explained above.
Splitting the first sentence into two sentences is OK with me if other people think that makes it easier to read, although I liked the balance of having one sentence about the general situation and one sentence about the Mail-specific situation. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence seemed too big to comfortably read. It read like terms and conditions to me, which is why i tried to split it up and reword it. I like your "reporting of reactions and quotes" part though. Can you do a new wording below? And i considered the suicide claim significant enough to mention. It is mentioned in most sources, and even if only quoted in some, it is still one of the made up events of the case whch i included because it was part of the complaint. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 12:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
IOW, you wish to present a POV article here and not abide by WP:NPOV? Sorry -- you would need far more than a mere consensus for that, and you do not have anywhere near a consensus for the edits you wish. Cheers. DRN can not negate WP:NPOV ever, and it will not do so now. Collect (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a new version to offer yet - I think my latest proposal above still balances the specific concerns I've seen and the sources I've read. I agree that the sentences are a little long, but I haven't yet figured out a way to split the first one without causing even more awkwardness. Collect, any comments on the proposal from 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC) above? For the 90 second thing, here's the relevant part of the Washington Post column: "A spokesperson for the Daily Mail told the Press Gazette that the publication will look into the incorrect story, which they said was live for 90 seconds, though some commenters claimed it was available online for much longer." They take the other claims seriously enough to mention them, which may justify being a little vague. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The PCC accepted the 90 second figure. That someone uses a cached system to view an article does not bring the 90 seconds into question. On AOL, the cache was sometimes updated only after some hours, and such events should not be imputed in any way to the Mail Online. "Available online" != "not removed at the 90 second mark" if you talk to anyone in the online communication area at all. In fact, it can take Wikipedia itself more than 20 minutes to update its own caches of articles! (technical load issues are a primary cause). In short, where the MO make a statement and the PCC acceots that statement, it is UNDUE for us to use unnamed "commentators" without identifying them specifically. Cheers. - I had thought was had an agreement on the language for sure. Collect (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The Mail Online is not a reliable source Collect. It's not made clear if the PCC say 90 seconds, solely because that is the defense of the Mail, or if they actually investigated the time it was up. What is clear is that there are reliable sources disputing this time given by the Mail. That's controversial.
And your message on my talk page was not appropriate. Read the sources and you'll quickly see it's all there. No one is trying to challenge NPOV, it's just a fantasy you have created. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
And since when can NPOV be used to remove half a debate? I notice Collect finds the Mail's claim of 90 seconds notable, but not that multiple other sources challenge that time...That's not NPOV at all...it's almost like it's a violation of NPOV...Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Try again -- YOU chose to use the PCC result as a source - and when one uses a source, one uses the entire source. And that particular source ... gives the 90 second claim. It is NPOV to use all of a source, it is POV to cherry-pick from the source. Do you see the difference? And I note that your "multiple sources" include one which says "swiftly" (DigitalSpy) and one which is a blog, and one which quotes an "Irish blogger". I would further note that GoogleNews etc. do not refresh their results every minute (heck, neither does Wikipedia!), and that the one DigitalSpy noted that the link from such a source led to a deadlink -- meaning that the 90 seconds used by the PCC is the only reliably sourced time we have at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Erm, no. Read WP:Reliable and get back to us on that one Collect. It takes more than that to rule a source unreliable. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 16:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jenova, the "within 90 seconds" is the claim made only by the MailOnline, and therefore it cannot be used as a fact. Pscorp19 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you still want to claim there are no reliable sources? Another one. That's on top of the 3 from earlier. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 17:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
And the PCC report still stands as the definitive report which you specifically wished to use - so we get to use all of it. That Googlenews or the like link to a story which has been removed != any value at all. They frequently take a half hour to update their links. And your prior three sources had only one RS source say a blogger reported the story was live for a short while, while DigitalSpy (RS) stated "swiftly." Your blog source of course fails WP:RS. Now is there any value at all to your tendentiousnes on this? I would note your sources make naught of the "suicide watch" claim you sought to insert, or the multitude of trivia now found in that section including In April 2012, Salon magazine reported that MailOnline overhyped a story about Egyptian necrophilia law which Al-Arabiya took from a newspaper opinion column written by a dedicated Hosni Mubarak supporter. where there is no accusation the MO did anything wrong at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The PCC got the 90 second figure from the Mail Online using it as their defense, which is not a reliable source. To mention it, you would have to attribute it to the Mail Online directly, rather than claim it as fact. That's misrepresentation of the sources Collect. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm looking at "within 90 seconds" vs. "within minutes" as a question of finding the version that will cause less of an edit war. :) Can we take a quick survey of whether people would tolerate the article saying "within minutes"? Collect, can you provide details from the sources supporting that people's claims of longer availability (as noted in the Washington Post column) were caused by the article getting cached on other websites, so we can look at that in more detail? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The PCC examined just about everything - and accepted the 90 seconds figure. I can assure you that Googlenews shows links which are "dead" on a common basis, and one of the articles cited stated that they followed a link from another page and found the actual article had been removed, though not removed from the referring site. As the only sources that it was not removed are bloggers, and we do not give weight to blogger claims as a rule, I suggest we stick with the PCC findings (including the fact they praised the Mail for its quick response - which they would not have done if they thought it was less than swift action). Collect (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to say the Mail's defense of 90 seconds (making clear it's what they said and not a fact) but also making clear that others dispute this, including the Washington Post. Going with one side over the other wouldn't be fair and the 90 seconds alone is a violation of NPOV since Wikipedia would be siding with the Mail against the sources available and ignoring their argument. And Collect, i am free to change my opinion. If your only defense is that i said something before changing my mind then you need a better argument. We're trying to figure out a wording here and you're trying to be childish and create divisions and arguments. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm kind of out of ideas here - "within minutes" seems like the best option to me, but it sounds like neither of you are willing to go with that compromise. Are any dispute resolution volunteers available to step in and help? Dreamyshade (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We shouldn't try and place a specific time since both sides dispute it. We just need what the Mail said, and what the other side counter with. That's balanced, that's neutral. Picking a side isn't. Collect removes all reference to the controversy every time and so we're left with the highly POV piece we currently have which praises the Mail Online. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above belies your claims about my edits. I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and decide on your own to abide thereon. And that you find WP:NPOV to be a problem with your edits, I suggest you have a cup of tea and abide by that policy as well. Your sources say only that blofggers said it was available for a half hour. The MO, and the PCC agree on the 90 seconds. I would point out that removing an article at the 90 second mark does not remove it from the Googlenews cache, or the AOL cache instantly. Heck, an edit changed in 90 seconds on Wikipedia may show up in caches for days if that is when the crawlers hit the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Please highlight the personal attack as i can't see it. I can see comments on your edits, but nothing attacking you. Just another misleading claim to distract from the issue we're all here for. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That's what i pulled up on it, no blogs, no mention of bloggers. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
And see [58] wherein it solicits folks to blog on any topic on that site. Currently all contributor positions on WhatCulture are unpaid, Your articles have the potential to be read by hundreds of thousands of people, Whether you are a brand new contributor with no previous articles published or someone who has published over 1,000 articles, you have the same chance of having your content featured on the homepage., In the Summer of 2011, after winning the Sky Movies Blog of the Year award, the site evolved into WhatCulture and now covers a huge range of topics. Now tell me it is not a blog when it was named Blog of the Year. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The actual Seattle Mail article is at [59] and is identified as a blog - which is ok for a fact-checked newspaper. Most news outlets had two versions of the same story ready to run - one if Knox was acquitted, and the other if her appeal was rejected. The Daily Mail ran both. And Jonathan Walczak produced all of two blog entries for all of 2012. Not a regular contributor to a newspaper which fact chacks his blog entries. Newspaper blogs are allowed as sources if and only if they represent material under regular editorial control of the newspaper (These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process). His own SPS site calls him an "award winning journalist" and lists no awards <g>. He has zero apparent notability as a "journalist" and I find zer awards, and the "Seattle Weekly" does not call him a staff member. What I do find is two blog posts in all of 2012. Sorry folks - the word "blog" is absolutely suited for his post. Clear enough? Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I've not found better sources so i'll drop that obstacle. We still need to do something about your version though, which i find highly POV for praising the Mail. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The PCC was the group that "praised" the Mail -- we do not remove praise from a governing agency because we think it unmerited. Nor is reporting an official opinion "POV" in such a case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Erm, when you change a negative event for a news source, which was roundly criticised by many into a positive praising for that news source, then it is highly POV. That's exactly what it currently is and you urgently need to study WP:NPOV. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 13:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jenova20, can you be more specific about which parts you still find problematically POV, ideally providing sources showing that the phrasing is unbalanced, so that we can inspect it more carefully and make progress? Dreamyshade (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a POV piece. I still find the original wording more neutral as:
In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers temporarily published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. Mail Online stated that the article was removed within 90 seconds and they apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of fictional quotes and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable".
Obviously i've added a bit before the 90 seconds part to clarify that it is a claim, not a fact and not in Wikipedia's voice. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's the current version again for easier comparison:
In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers prematurely published standby articles on Amanda Knox's trial reporting an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict. MailOnline removed the article within 90 seconds and apologized, and the error was the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error.
I'm OK with changing "removed the article within 90 seconds" to "stated that the article was removed within 90 seconds" - the new wording is not too lengthy or contentious. I'm not sure about entirely removing "but commented positively on the handling of the error" - saying that helps provide balanced coverage of the PCC's statement. Another option would be to cut out the whole last part of the sentence in order to not specifically cover the negative or positive comments in the report (cutting out "and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error"). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with either of those (removing the PCC's criticism and praise, or including both and clearly showing that it's their opinion not fact). If we're going to include their opinion on the MailOnline's actions at all, we should have it all. Jenova, Collect, what do you think? CarrieVS (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
In October 2011, MailOnline and several other news sources published prepared articles on Amanda Knox's trial prematurely. The articles reported an upholding of the guilty verdict before the judge had finished announcing the reversal of the guilty verdict.[1][2][3][4] Mail Online state the article was removed within 90 seconds and apologized. The article became the subject of a Press Complaints Commission complaint that noted the article's reporting of events and reactions that had not taken place and said that was "not acceptable" but commented positively on the handling of the error. The article also made claims that Amanda Knox and her partner were put on suicide watch, which were false.[5][6][7][8]
  1. ^ "Daily Mail inquiry into 'Knox guilty' blunder". PressGazette. 4 October 2011. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  2. ^ Joel Gunter (4 October 2011). "Daily Mail criticised over Amanda Knox guilty story". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  3. ^ Stuart Kemp (3 October 2011). "Amanda Knox Verdict: Daily Mail’s Website Posts Wrong Decision". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  4. ^ Greenslade, Roy (4 October 2011). "The Guardian on the false Mail Online Amanda Knox verdict". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2013. 
  5. ^ "Mail Online censured over 'Amanda Knox guilty' story". Press Gazette. 9 December 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  6. ^ Rachel McAthy (12 December 2011). "PCC censures Mail Online for Knox verdict report". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  7. ^ Andrew Beaujon (10 May 2012). "Daily Mail spanked for fabricating Amanda Knox story". Poynter. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
  8. ^ Roy Greenslade (9 December 2011). "Daily Mail censured for fictional story about Amanda Knox verdict". Greensdale Blog. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 January 2013. 
First sentence changed since no newspapers were involved as far as i'm aware. And the notable claims of the event added. What's your opinions? Thanks Jenova20 (email) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on a modified proposal. Changing "newspapers" to "news sources" is reasonable. I don't think it's helpful for clarity to change "standby" to "prepared" or move "prematurely" to the end of the sentence - note the comment I quoted about "standby" vs "prepared" at 11:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC): ("All stories are "prepared" in some sense or another"). I'm slightly not in favor of splitting up the sentences, but I don't feel strongly about that since it's just a style thing and not a content issue. Regarding the suicide watch detail, I'd like to repeat what I said above at 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC): "The suicide watch detail was in the original MailOnline article, and the PCC complaint mentions it along with other details from the article, but the PCC summary and three of four articles on the complaint don't mention it, so I believe including it would be undue." Dreamyshade (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. This discussion seems it's progessing well without volunteer input. Would it be alright if we closed off the discussion here and for it to continue on the article talk page? Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 10:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm OK with that. Ideally we could just close this up here with the addition of a couple more neutral opinions on the wording like CarrieVS provided above, since otherwise it might drag on for even longer on the talk page, but dragging on isn't too big of a deal. Jenova20, Collect - what do you think? Dreamyshade (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New York (USA) , Bucharest (Romania)

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Phorion on 10:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC).
  1. ^ http://www.voxnovus.com/composer/Liana_Alexandra.htm