Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:43, 23 February 2017

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	In Progress	Instantwatym (t)	8 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 5 hours
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	In Progress	Avi8tor (t)	6 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Avi8tor (t)	4 hours
Arecibo message	Resolved	67.149.172.22 (t)	4 days, 9 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 15 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	1 days, 15 hours
Killing of Laken Riley	Closed	Jonathan f1 (t)	3 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours
shakshuka	New	LEvalyn (t)	2 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 18 hours	LEvalyn (t)	1 days, 16 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Current disputes

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Firespeaker on 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Planet of the Apes (2001 film)#Lincoln Memorial issue again (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

We are trying to determine the best way to summarise part of the closing scene of the movie Planet of the Apes (2001). The original wording is strongly preferred by one party, and some alternative wordings have been suggested by some other parties. The alternative wordings attempt to clarify what appears to have occurred in the scene, but supporters of the original wording suggest that it bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. Likewise, the supporters of alternative wordings suggest that the original wording bears a bias for a particular interpretation of the scene. We would like to arrive at some consensus that allows for the widest possible range of interpretations.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Not noticing the original discussion from a year ago, an edit was made to the sentence which was reverted almost immediately by one of the people originally involved. The discussion was opened up again on the talk page, and it quickly became apparent that a third party would be needed to help find a compromise.

How do you think we can help?

Determine the core of the arguments, figure out what each perspective is trying to say, and help find a wording that will be as acceptable as possible to people of as many perspectives as possible.

Summary of dispute by SonOfThornhill

The original and current wording reflects what is actually shown in the film. As MOS PLOT it states - "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". The other wordings suggest that it is somehow an alternate earth or Washington DC. That is no where evident in the film or script. That is only personal opinion and interpretation. When asked on numerous occasions to support this interpretation with a primary source, none was presented. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Ommnomnomgulp

My original contention--which matches OP's, from what I can tell--is that the film's ending is ambiguous and the Wiki should reflect this. The original change I made allows for this ambiguity without changing the truth value of the current wording that is strongly supported by SOT. In the film, one simply cannot determine if the geography shown at the film's conclusion is actually Washington DC that has been changed to suit the apes's world or if it is an original creation of the apes. My original wording and the wording provided by OP correctly takes this ambiguity into account while still leaving open the potential for either reality.

In my view, the Lincoln Memorial always _appears to be_ the Lincoln Memorial, but the audience can't be sure if the memorial was changed or if it's an original creation original to the apes. Also, at the end of the movie, the edifice simply can't be the Lincoln Memorial, anymore, since the individual memorialized within is Thade, and not Lincoln. As such, it's wrong to call the structure the Lincoln Memorial, regardless of what it maybe had once been. The same issue applies to the statue. It is a statue of Thade, not Lincoln, although it may or may not have been a statue that included Lincoln's countenance at one time in the past. No one can know from the limited information provided in the film. As the viewer sees it, the memorial is to Thade, and Thade clearly is the figure that is memorialized. These objects together may have been the memorial we now know as the Lincoln Memorial, but the viewer cannot be sure, and the language provided originally by myself and then, independently by OP, take this into account. SOT has called this analysis an "opinion," whereas I believe it is based on sound philological principles.

SOT believes that the script should be the ultimate arbiter in this matter--or "primary source" as he calls it (neglecting the film as a primary source, apparently)--but the script also includes references to Wahlberg's character being physically held by apes at the end of the film, when, in the movie, he was not. As such, the script is unreliable and does not reflect the final product that appeared in theaters. In any case, the scripts usually serve as a guide and, as such, does not mean that it, in itself, is the story Burton actually provided to audiences on screen. In any case, the original wordings provided by myself and OP (I assume independently of me) takes care of this, as these sentences allow for SOT's interpretation as well as any ambiguities that arose between the script and the final version of the film.

Please don't misrepresent my views. I've always said the film or the script, never said just the script. And the film itself is not at all ambiguous as to that Leo is on earth and in Washington DC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ZJ0F8Ik9E SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Planet of_the_Apes_(2001_film)#Lincoln_Memorial_issue_again discussion

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

Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Although the filing editor did not notify the other editors, the other editors have commented, so notifying them is not necessary. This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I notified them immediately on the article talk page, and followed up with one of them on his user talk page when it seemed he might have missed my note on the article talk page. —Firespeaker (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Firespeaker did notify me on my Talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules, because those are the ground rules for moderated discussion. To repeat what is said there, be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Participants are expected to comment with 48 hours after I post. Now: Will each participant state in one or two sentences what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by participating editors

The scene makes it clear that Leo crashes on Earth in Washington, D.C. He then deboards his craft on the steps of what should be the Lincoln Memorial; however, what otherwise looks like the Lincoln Memorial includes (instead?) a statue commemorating General Thade. How this came to be is left open—viewers can come to many conclusions about the timeline, universe, mental state of Leo, etc. to explain this—so the wording should only reflect the scene as it plays out. My current preference is for something like "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade", but I suppose something (which I'm not understanding) about how it relates to the ontology of the scene is objectionable. Other proposals have seemed objectionable to me for similar sorts of reasons, which suggests that there's a disconnect between various people's understandings of the scene that we're failing to communicate to one another. —Firespeaker (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is fine by me. As was stated on the article's talk page several days ago. I thought this matter has been resolved then. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator

Has this dispute been resolved? Is the wording about a monument to General Thade acceptable to all? If not, please state what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors

There were other wordings that I find better in various ways, but I can certainly live with this one. It sounded like the other participants felt similarly. So yes, pending any comments from User:Ommnomnomgulp, I believe this issue is basically resolved. (I was surprised that it was opened for moderated discussion right as it seemed like we were coming to a consensus.) On the other hand, I'm a little uneasy about the fact that I still don't understand User:SonOfThornhill's issues with the somewhat more accurate (imho) reading "He looks up to see that what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial is instead a monument in honor of General Thade", even after a week of back-and-forth trying to figure it out. I guess the fact that he was adamantly opposed to it in the first place is reason enough not to go with it, but I feel really stupid after all his explanations that I just never understood. The wording he accepts I basically just stumbled across by accident while I was fumbling around with other ways to express things. Would it be appropriate to ask for his opinion on why the "actually" wording is better than the "appears to be" wording? —Firespeaker (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this several time but will try once again. The wording "otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is an alternate Earth and/or Washington DC which is not at all evident in the film. It is only more accurate in your opinion and is merely a personal interpretation which violates MOS:PLOT. Hope that clears things up for you. SonOfThornhill (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally in agreement with Firespeaker on this issue and believe that "appears to be" is more accurate given that "the Lincoln Memorial" implies that it is, indeed, the Lincoln Memorial, when the person memorialized therein is Thade, not Lincoln. It may or may not have been the Lincoln Memorial at one time, but the film proves that, in that moment, it is not the Lincoln Memorial no matter what it may have been in the past. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't necessarily an alternate Earth/whatever, but the explanation provided makes a leap that I'm having trouble making. Namely, how does the wording "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" imply that it is another universe? As I see it, it's just saying that this monument resembles the Lincoln Memorial in all possible ways up to that point—location relative to other landmarks, the steps, etc. It's just that it appears different from the Lincoln Memorial in that it shows General Thade instead. This makes no indication of what it "truly is" or how it got that way. Unless I'm really just missing something—in which case, could someone please fill me in? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC

"Appears to be" implies that it is not and never was, thus an alternate earth or Washington. Therefore, in violation of MOS:PLOT SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. Even our Lincoln Memorial always appears to be the Lincoln Memorial. If I were driving along the road, and pointed to it, I could, without problem, say "that appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I think we might be getting to the heart of the matter. I wholeheartedly second what User:Ommnomnomgulp said. Anything can appear to be the Lincoln Memorial, including (especially!) the actual Lincoln Memorial. —Firespeaker (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, let me show you what we're trying to say. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

[reply]

The point of the Venn diagramme above is to demonstrate how the range of interpretations available from the "appears to be" wording is much wider, and in no way narrower. In fact, it seems to be the "actually" wording that is imposing more of an interpretation on the scene. —Firespeaker (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you two playing semantical games. You know that the phrase "appears to be" implies that it is an alternate earth or Washington dc which is why you're both pushing for it. But sorry any wording that implies what is a personal interpretation or opinion is in violation of MOS:PLOT. So give it up. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it implies that at all--it doesn't appear to me that it does. I can't speak for Firespeaker, but I for one, would appreciate some good faith. I don't know what we're seeing at the end of this movie (other than a film that needs to be burned, salted, and irradiated so that it can never harm anyone, ever again) other than a monument to Thade that appears to be similar in appearance to the Lincoln Memorial. You might have to allow myself and others to feel that we're right in a manner that has nothing to do with "opinion," as you keep wanting to push on us. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfThornhill brought this DR discussion to my attention. As I said on the talk page, I didn't see a problem with the previous wording. I think the current wording,^{[further explanation needed]} with changes that no one seemed to specifically object to, have made it understandable for any reader. I don't see anything necessarily wrong with adding "appears to be" or similar, but at the same time I don't see that it adds any clarity to what's probably the most straightforward part of this highly confusing scene. The building shown both is and appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, which is the whole point of the twist. It's a famous building specifically chosen so the audience would recognize it instantly.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been at one time, but at the end of the movie it is not NOT the Lincoln Memorial since Lincoln is not the person memorialized therein. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a pretty sophistic argument. Very many sources just call it the "Lincoln Memorial", knowing full well that readers will get the picture.[1][2][3][4]--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not previously been a participant in this discussion. I support the phrasing "appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" because stating that "the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" is counterfactual for exactly the reason explained by Ommnomnomgulp; it is a monument to General Thade and therefore is not the Lincoln Memorial. "Appears to be the Lincoln Memorial" is the most accurate description of what is depicted on the screen, because the filmmakers intentionally created a visual similarity to that structure before showing that it was not that entity. I wish to refute SonOfThornhill's claim that the phrase "appears to be" violates MOS:PLOT by implying a personal interpretation that this is an alternate Earth. It does not do that. The film is ambiguous and doesn't give concrete answers as to how the monument to Thade came to be. Leo could be further in the future, or in his original time, or even in the past. And apes could have defaced the Lincoln Memorial to depict Thade, or they could have razed the Lincoln Memorial to build the monument to Thade, or the past could have been changed so that apes built the first and only structure to occupy the space. In some interpretations, this is the same structure that was once the Lincoln Memorial, but in others it is not. "Appears to be" allows all of these (and not only these) and doesn't specify any one; the only thing this version of the sentence implies, by its omission of further explanation or specificity, is that the depicted result is unexplained. It doesn't imply the specific plot interpretation that SOT rejects, that this is an alternate Earth; it only describes the visual experience as I noted above. It carries no implication about the storyline, and avoids the ontological problem of identifying the non-Lincoln Memorial as "the Lincoln Memorial." --DavidK93 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the phrase 'appears to be' allows for different interpretations. Which is exactly why it is in violation of MOS:PLOT which states, "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work". Thank you for making my case for me. The film is not at all ambiguous as to Leo being on earth and in Washington DC, so the scene is not open to "interpretation". The current wording is "an obvious recap of the work" and should remain. Alternate wordings proposed by Cúchullain & Ian.thomson are also acceptable. Any wording that implies or supports personal interpretations are not. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator

I see that one of the rules in the statement of rules has been disregarded. However, the resulting exchange has been useful. I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, and there has been back-and-forth discussion. I will personally comment that I agree that if General Thade is memorialized in the building that resembles the Parthenon, it is not the Lincoln Memorial any more than it is the Parthenon. If General Thade is memorialized, something has changed, and it isn't the Lincoln Memorial Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is how to refer to the building, it appears that there is an impasse. Are the editors willing to agree to use a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors

Sure. Why not? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, does anyone have a copy of the film's novelization. I wonder what wording it uses. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a request for comments would be an excellent idea at this point. Thanks! —Firespeaker (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this debate with some amusement. Was going to comment on the Movie's talk page but thought the issue was resolved. Now the dispute has been moved here. I always thought the original wording was the best 'the Lincoln Memorial is now a monument in honor of General Thade'. That is a fair description of the last scene of the movie. The ending a bit confusing. But when you apply Occam's razor it is the best wording. The apes took over and changed the building a monument to Thade. Otherwise you have to believe that the apes built an exact replica of DC and the Lincoln Memorial on the exact spot that humans did. That is a real strength. And to something the moderator said above, Madison Square Garden in NYC was named that because its original site was Madison Square, It has moved several times but retains its original name. The Sofia Mosque in Istanbul is now a museum and has been for years. But it is still called a mosque and still named for the Christian saint Sofia. This because they are the common names that most people refer to them. The same is true here. The Lincoln Memorial is the reference point for the audience. Istanbul was once named Constantinople. If Leo was a time traveler from 1000 AD and landed in modern day Istanbul, you wouldn't say that he landed in what otherwise appears to be Constantinople. You'd say he landed back in Constantinople to find that it was now called Istanbul. That is why the original wording it the best. 149.39.250.11 (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator

Does anyone object to a Request for Comments? We will probably have one anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Christian bishops meet in the city that is called Istanbul on maps in modern times, they will refer to their council in Constantinople. (Christian clergy still call it by its ancient name.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors

No. Still wondering if anyone has a copy of the novelizations. Curious what it says. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Istanbul/Constantinople, the difference is that, in this movie, we don't have enough information even to know that, in fact, the structure that was the Lincoln Memorial was physically transformed into the monument to Thade. It's possible that, due to a timeline change, the latter was built instead of the former ever existing. Or it could be that the Thade monument stands where the Lincoln Memorial once stood, but isn't the same structure. In the film, this event is completely unexplained. The article should not purport to explain it, and therefore should not definitively identify the structure as the Lincoln Memorial. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No back-and-forth discussion. We already know it hasn't worked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not purporting to explain it with the current wording. The current wording is neutral. In the movie, the audience knows that Leo is back on Earth in Washington. There is no doubt about that. What you're purporting is a lot of what ifs that are no where evident in the film. Those are personal interpretations and don't belong in the plot summary per [MOS:PLOT]]. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, yes; that's why I don't suggest putting an interpretation in the summary. The wording I support doesn't exclude some interpretations that yours does, but that is not equivalent to actually putting any interpretations in the summary. --DavidK93 (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wordings that I suggested tried to be as neutral as possible. Once the phrase 'otherwise appears to be' is inserted, the implication is that it never was the Lincoln Memorial. That is drawing a conclusion based on a specific interpretation that has no source. And thus, is in violation of [MOS:PLOT]. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator

Will each editor please propose their wording of the description of the last scene, so that we can compose the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors

I'm fine with the current wording by Cúchullain, "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade." which is a straight forward depiction of the scene in the film. Or "He looks up to see that the Lincoln Memorial is actually a monument in honor of General Thade" which I think Ian.thomson proposed. Also, a straight forward depiction of what is in the film. SonOfThornhill (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Here is a third alternative, "He walks into the Memorial and sees a monument to General Thade instead of President Lincoln". SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My current preferred wording for the sentence in question (which is only part of the last scene) is something like "He looks up to see a statue of General Thade in what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." —Firespeaker (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the rule against back-and-forth discussion didn't somebody understand? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the phrase, 'what otherwise appears to be' has been the core of the issue, that is a total non-starter. Several compromise wordings have been offered. Choose one of them or offer one of your own. But as long as you continue to push for the inclusion of that phrase, this issue will never be resolved. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole point was for us to specify our ideal wordings and then get comments from outside. It's possible I misunderstood what RFC was for and what User:Robert McClenon was asking for. Could someone please clarify? —Firespeaker (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My preferred wording it is the original, "He looks up to see the Lincoln Memorial is now a monument in honor of General Thade". But I'm trying to find a compromise that will achieve a consensus and satisfy all parties. You seem to be in 'my way or the highway' mode which explains why you ran here after the issue had been resolved on the film's talk page. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing my best not to let myself be baited by these messages, but I've had just about enough of the accusatory tone and strong-arm tactics you've been using. I'm doing my best to look for a compromise (you may notice that I'm not simply "sticking to" my originally proposed wording), but this doesn't mean I'm any more keen on the wording you're proposing. And the fact that I'm not going along with it doesn't mean I'm not looking for a compromise. As I understood it, right now we're supposed to be presenting our preferred wording and not something we think is a compromise, and these proposals will be collected and discussed for their individual merits. Strong-arm tactics and accusatory messages have no place in any of this, so please stop it. I apologise to the moderator if I'm out of line here, but I feel like every message User:SonOfThornhill sends is a troll attack :( Could we please have clarification on the process (as I requested earlier) ASAP? —Firespeaker (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting the someone who engaged in WP:Votestacking and who after the issue was resolved on the Talk page ran here because they didn't get their way there is accusing anyone of strong-arm tactics. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making accusations here. This is not the place for it. As I've told you numerous times before, if you suspect that I have done anything wrong (and ideally if you have evidence to back up your claim), please report it through the appropriate channel. (Also, I came here because there was a lack of agreement and it was clear that we weren't going to resolve this between ourselves—not because I "didn't get [my] way".) —Firespeaker (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to get your way. You're the one who initiated all of this. You made the change without any discussion on the Talk page and when it was reverted you ran to notify another editor who agreed with you. Then when the issue was discussed on the talk page and you couldn't get your way on there, you brought the dispute here. You refuse to accept any compromise on the issue despite several being offered. The objection to the wording "otherwise appears to be" was explained to you several times yet you kept asking for an explanation for it. You're the one who has kept pushing this dispute and dragged it out for two weeks now when you had several opportunities to shut it down. I'll also point out that you have failed to produce any source that supports your personal interpretation. While several have been produced that dispute it. [5][6][7][8] SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator

What I had asked was that each participant provide their own preference for the wording of the last line or last paragraph. The purpose is to offer them as alternatives for the RFC. Back-and-forth discussion is forbidden. If there is any back-and-forth discussion, this thread will be failed, and the editor or editors who engage in the back-and-forth discussion will be given a Level 3 warning. Now: Please each editor provide their preferred version of the concluding sentence or paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors

My current preferred wording for the sentence in question (which is only part of the last scene) is something like "He looks up to see a statue of General Thade in what otherwise appears to be the Lincoln Memorial." While I am open to modification of the surrounding sentences as well, I do not believe that that would be necessary with this wording. I hope this statement of my preference is in no way seen as uncooperative or trying to "force" my agenda on other contributors. It is simply my preferred wording based on reasoning that has already been stated. I look forward to seeing what other contributors suggest, and coming to a compromise that works for everyone. —Firespeaker (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess since we are throwing any attempt at compromise in order to reach a consensus out the window, I'll go with the current wording, "He looks up at the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument to General Thade". This was the consensus wording on the Talk page before the issue was dragged over here. This is the wording that doesn't violate MOS:PLOT which states, 'Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work'. This is also the wording that doesn't indulge in any fanboy theories that are not evident in the film and is supported by sources [9][10][11][12], including the script [13] I'll also add that the phrase 'otherwise appears to be' is drawing the conclusion that the structure was never the Lincoln Memorial. There is no evidence of this in the film. Nor are there any sources that support this interpretation. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with Firespeaker's interpretation or otherwise, if there's still some room for merging the two sentences: "Leo crashes in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., only to find that it is a monument in honor of General Thade." The semi-redundant "Washington, D.C," could be pulled to make a more concise sentence. The most concise version would be "Leo crashes in front of what appears to be the Lincoln Memorial, only to find a monument honoring General Thade."" Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator

A Request for Comments is being posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors

The RFC seems a little unclear. It talks about this being the last sentence of the article, which isn't right. Also, I think the extra sentence that C would be replacing should be added to the wording of A and B. And is the quotation mark in C significant? One more thing: are we (the original editors involved in this issue) encouraged to participate in the survey or exclude ourselves from the survey? —Firespeaker (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Chipmunkdavis on 17:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over how to present Singapore's independence in the infobox. This includes whether to note that independence was from a country, and which events to include.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive talkpage discussion, this is the next DR step taken.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a fresh look at how the arguments interact, if the participants are talking past each other, and fresh opinions and ideas.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

Summary of dispute by Lemongirl942

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

The dispute is about the independence parameter in the infobox. If we go by what most FA and GA are using, the current convention is

Use the most recent independence event which led to the formation of sovereign state
If the latest independence event was obtained from a single entity, use "Independence from...x". Otherwise if the country was independence from multiple occupiers, use "Independence" and link to the event.

--Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Wrigleygum

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

Summary of dispute by Shiok

Singapore has two significant 'Independence' events, unlike most countries – from the UK (after 144 years) and Malaysia (2 years). So it is only logical to have a single word 'Independent' (current Sovereign_type) as the heading to embrace both.
As pointed out by another editor, there is also no 'from' parameter in Template:Infobox country. Shiok (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Zhanzhao

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

Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty discussion

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

Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this request and should do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Individual talkpages messages in addition to the existing note on the article talk page. CMD (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The filing party's overview is brief and did not include reasons in defense of his edits to begin with. A summary of Singapore talk page discussions would also be helpful to the moderators and other editors who may have tired of the long discussions and 'wall of text'. I would include the following in the overview:

CMD proposed his bold edit here:

Independence from Malaysia

British colonisation: 6 February 1819
Self-government: 3 June 1959
Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
Expulsion from Malaysia: 9 August 1965

The only change from the previous version is the Sovereign_type parameter, which also serves as title of the section - from 'Formation' to 'Independence from Malaysia'. The dispute is that 4 editors (Shiok, Zhanzhao, Jytdog,Wrigleygum) prefers a single word, either 'Independent' or 'Independence'. 2 editors (CMD, Lemongirl942) has argued to stick with what he proposed. Shiok (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer response Hello, I am KDS4444 and I am willing to take a shot at helping resolve this conflict. First, it looks like only one of the involved parties has opted to make any summary of the dispute. This is fine, of course, so long as everyone was notified of the discussion (which, according to CMD, has been done). I have read over the discussion on the talk page, and want to make sure I understand this issue correctly. The dispute is with regard to what should be placed in the infobox of the article for the parameter sovereighty_type= and whether the nation's independence should refer to its independence from Britain or from Malaysia. Right now as I look at the article and trace its history back a week or so, I am not even seeing the sovereighty_type= parameter anywhere, so I need someone to help me out here with that. Once I get a sense of where the article currently stands and if my understanding of the issue can be verified by any of the involved parties, I will offer up some thoughts. Although I can see that there has been a certain amount of tension between the parties, I get the sense that everyone is willing to be very reasonable, which is encouraging to me. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I kept my initial posting short and succinct and hopefully neutral, apologies if that was not what I was meant to do. The dispute mentioned is actually what to put in the sovereignty_note= field, which works alongside the sovereighty_type= field (and everyone seems to agree that "Independence" fits the type field), but functionally you're correct. The field has been removed from the article since discussing began. You can see the parameters at Template:Infobox country, and in the version that existed before the change I made linked by Shiok above here. Related to this are disputes over the contents of the subsequent established_event= lines, which were not in the initial edit but emerged during discussion. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping initial postings short is always preferred— no one likes seeing a wall of text. So now... Where do we stand? The parameter has been removed— what can I help you resolve, specifically? Obviously I can't tell you anything about the nature of Singapore history or politics... Where/ On what points do the parties have a specific dispute that there is any chance I can help resolve here? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the above infobox data needs to be restored at some point and DRN volumteers can help concur that a single word sovereighty_type= – 'Independent or Independence' will better embrace both of Singapore's two independences in the key events list. For this, you do not need to know Singapore's history. If you agree on a single-word sovereign_type, then we would appreciate an opinion whether 'Independent' (preferred by Jytdog) or 'Independence' (preferred by Zhanzhao, Wrigleygum) is the more appropriate one to use here. I can go with either term. Thanks. Shiok (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer response Inasmuch as the parameter sovereighty_type= implies an adjective rather than a noun, "independent" strikes me as more appropriate than "independence". Also, to the extent that this is relevant here, I think that people visiting the page and looking at the infobox want to know whether or not Singapore today is perhaps an independent "country" (city-state) rather than some kind of national subunit or territory of a larger nation— regardless of when or how that status was arrived at. This is particularly true since it is such a very small place but with such a very large international presence— a reader may well ask themselves, "How can such a tiny place like that be an independent country? But then again, it is Singapore..." The details of independence from whom all belong in the article's main body. To the extent that this thought is relevant here. KDS4444 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be useful would be to help promote engagement with what is written in discussions. As I noted above in the initial summary and my slightly longer response here, the discussion is not just about the appropriate suffix of independent. The stonewalling with regards to this is unhelpful. CMD (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of engagement on the talk page but your points are mostly irrelevant to infobox and everyone has stopped. As KDS4444 says, those are details for the body. I have been very specific in addressing just your infobox edits already proposed, not additional ones for now or prose which we can engage further in Talk, So do you accept the volunteer's opinion (with 4 other editors) on just 'Independent' and have this DRN closed? Shiok (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're direct comments on infobox content. What content should be in the infobox is highly relevant to infobox content. CMD (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they change the use of "Independent" as Sovereignty_type? I'm guessing not, but if you feel they are important, then we should let the volunteers consider. Please consolidate all the relevant comments together so we do not keep introducing new items to discuss as has happened on the talk page. So what are the comments that are 'highly relevant'? Shiok (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is one section, and that is all that was discussed on the talkpage. But yes, considering Sovereignty_type forms a sentence with sovereignty_note=, they do affect each other. The comments can be found on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are being vague by just referring us back to to the talk page. That is a wall of text editors have abandoned - which would not be the case if they find it.to be what you regard as 'highly relevant'. And I note that no one has conceded to your arguments.. I don't see anything relevant myself, so I'm waiting for you to state some of them. Shiok (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find it useful for readers to know how Singapore became an independent country and what country they became independent from, as noted in guidance at Template:Infobox country. Sources note this occurred in 1965 as Singapore became independent from Malaysia. This is also why the SG50 celebrations were held two years ago. Relevant talkpage considerations are this one and this one. CMD (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly no longer feel I understand the nature of this dispute. It appears that offering an interpretation of the parameters in the infobox template has not been helpful (that template, by the way, has no documentation explaining exactly what is supposed to go in this parameter or many of the other parameters; I have attempted to expand some of the documentation where I could figure out what was supposed to go where and to provide some examples of entries, but did not make it down to sovereignty type which remains undefined— this was careless business on the part of whomever created all these parameters). I am prepared to either surrender my part in this discussion and offer it up for another volunteer to consider, or to mark it as a resolution failure as I don't see us getting to an actual resolution, at least not under my guidance. KDS4444 (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template has some documentation in the syntax section. The parameters are much older than the creation of VisualEditor. CMD (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KDS4444, can we raise this issue of the template for possible amendments? I could highlight this case for discussion as well. Shiok (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How our independence came about and from which countries (2) is already listed as key events, so no 'sovereignty_note' is needed. In fact readers should know that our colonial history with UK is much longer than the 2 years in Malaysia. I just read through the long paragraphs in talk again that you referred to and still can't make out it's relevance to the Infobox list. Is there a clear message from the dozens of points and how does it affect the infobox heading and content? It seems the more you write, the further the conversation strays from your first edit. So unless you intend to update the body prose with citations where we can debate every sentence and wording, I see no point in more discussions you wanted editors to engage in.

Next, I checked the article's history for the past decade and found the following version of the infobox sovereignty section to be stable for several years since 2009. Note that the last event was "Separation from Malaysia". That is correct because it was a negotiated "Separation Agreement" which the Malaysian parliament voted to pass. So we need to revert to that, with appropriate refs.

Formation. (-->Independent)

Founding: 6 February 1819 (-->British colonisation)
Self-government: 3 June 1959
Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963
Merger with Malaysia: 16 September 1963
Separation from Malaysia: 9 August 1965

Shiok (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer response Shiok, you are welcome to raise this issue on the infobox talk page, and if you believe your suggestions are straightforward ones then I encourage you to go ahead and edit the templatedata section and provide some useful examples for those parameters that you feel are vague or confusing. In doing that, you will probably want to make sure that your examples come from specific instances where a given parameter is actually filled in for a country's existing infobox somewhere. That aside (I am not supposed to be giving advice anyway!), I am still not sure where the remaining dispute now lies between the parties... or if there still is one. I do not feel like the participants have reach consensus on any specific conclusion, though that is not technically necessary in order for me to close this case. KDS4444 (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a start "Independence from the United Kingdom: 31 August 1963" is incorrect. This was an unilateral declaration which was not recognized by the British nor by the Malayan leadership. This should never be there in the infobox. The independence from British happened together with the merger with Malaysia. It was a combined event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jzsj on 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Jzsj (talk · contribs)
Justeditingtoday (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page Cristo Rey Network was edited by someone who works in the Network but I have cleaned up all that seems to me like advert and made the independent references more precise and pointed. But I have not been able to satisfy the person who keeps replacing the same three tags, I believe unfairly. The person has only a talk page, no user page, as indicated below.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Repeated improvements to article and request for help toward improvements on his/her talk page, on my talk page, and on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Someone explain to Justeditingtoday what "common sense" application of citation criteria means in the area of secondary schools where media coverage is not exhaustive and the institutions' websites can generally be trusted where claims are credible. Severe tagging of this very popular model of education for the poor is not going to "make Wikipedia thrive," but rather create more sceptics and critics for Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by User talk:Justeditingtoday

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

I was just now notified that this discussion was even happening. Contrary to what Jzsj claimed, no effort was made to notify me about this by him (and the fact that I have a redlinked user page is irrelevant). I repeatedly explained to Jzsj on my talk page and his that none of his edits alter the fact that the bulk of the text was added by someone named BrendaMorrisCristoReyNetwork which shows a clear conflict of interest. That tag is necessary per policy.

Jssj actually added more WP:PRIMARY sources here and unreliable sourcing like here (PRweb is not a reliable source) and used that as a basis to remove all the tags.

Now two brand new single purpose accounts have appeared, The1pes and Anna1985, the first of which immediately set out to remove the tags on the page. There is a complete conflict of interest here with obviously affiliated editors attempting to control the article to make it more promotional. I desired actually constructive edits per policy before the tags were removed. Since that apparently couldn't happen, I have no desire to fight a sock army over the page. Justeditingtoday (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Justeditingtoday#Cristo Rey Network discussion

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

Volunteer note - There has not been adequate discussion on the article talk page. There does appear to be an issue about the tags because of non-neutral language; that should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Cristo Rey Network, rather than being edit-warred. Adequate discussion on the talk page is a precondition for discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved our more-than-ample discussion to the article page from the page in which the discussion took place. Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion? I'm asking about specifics on the non-neutral language: it doesn't seem like an advert to me but rather a modest appraisal of a very successful model, and I am not connected to any of these schools. And are all three tags appropriate since the article has been gone over by a neutral, non-employee who has written over 300 Wiki articles and has a pretty good idea of what advert means.@Robert McClenon: Jzsj (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jzsj - It isn't entirely clear to me what your question is. You ask: "Must I just wait until some third party takes an interest in the discussion?" What are you asking? You are here at DRN, which is a forum to request a third party to conduct moderated discussion. You are not required to wait for a third party, but you are expected, regardless of whether you are asking for mediation, to take part in discussion on the article talk page. You say that you are asking for specifics about the non-neutral language, but you don't appear to be asking a question, but making a statement, and another editor disagrees with you. (You think that the language is satisfactory. Another editor thinks that it violates neutral point of view.) Discuss on the article talk page. There definitely has been COI editing, and the COI tag should only be removed if there is consensus that the article has been neutralized. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. Since you directed me to the talk page I am pleading for help there, though the editor who replaced the tags has no user page and so I don't know how to request his reply. Again, I don't find the person's statements about few independent sources or advert language to be accurate, since I removed most adjectives except from independent sources. One of his replies came within a minute of my removing the tags after four hours of my responding to the tags (q.v.), so I have reason to question whether he is reading the changes. Jzsj (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer comment I have had a look at the article: it still has too much puffery in it ("...traces its roots...", "...five full days a month...", "...more than two decades ago...", etc.) where it needs to only report specifics ("...began in...", "...five days per month...", "...22 years ago..."). This occurs throughout the article, and explains why it was tagged as non-neutral. It needs to be revised so that it reads like an encyclopedia article, not like an advert for the thing it describes. Good Lord, I can't even tell from the opening sentence what it IS! (A radio network? TV? Spider?). KDS4444 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Not difficult to correct all that. Jzsj (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer response I am now moving this discussion from "New" to "In progress" in the hopes of resolving it quickly. So far there has been no response from the other party. Jzsj, you should know that even though the user may not have a regular user account, this does not mean that he/ she doesn't have a talk page; and if a talk page does not yet exist for the account, there is nothing stopping you from making one, just like any other redlinked page. The user will be notified that there is a new message waiting for him/ her on the account talk page, and can look at it at his/ her leisure. This is no guarantee, of course, that this will be done, but it does relieve you of the obligation to do your due diligence of attempting to contact them via their talk page. Now, having said all that, I am impressed with the new state of the article with its puffery mostly lost and its tone changed. I see the tags are also removed, which seems appropriate. We can wait for a little while longer to see if the other party decides to enter this discussion or decides to attempt to replace the tags. If the tags go back up without that user having entered in to this resolution process or specifically justified his/ her actions on the article talk page, then there may be a case for warning and then blocking the account. My guess is that the user has grown tired and moved on. If so, I will be able to soon mark this case as resolved. KDS4444 (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit, however, that I remain concerned about possible WP:COI issues here, and it may still be appropriate to place a COI tag on the article— Jzsj, can you please disclose what your own relationship is with the Christo Rey Network? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI? I have never had any contact with anyone at the Network and, as I explain on my user page, I am using my free-time from prison ministry to give Jesuit works more of a presence in Wikipedia. I only visited one Cristo Rey school, briefly, just for a look, eight years ago, and have no contact with any of them now. That's it. Thanks for your acceptance of the improvements. I do find it more difficult to revise an article than to write concise, encyclopedic articles from scratch.Jzsj (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this discussion has been moved to the article's talk page, as recommended above. Jzsj (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by volunteer comment: There had been no notice given to the other party. I've just given the notice. I concur with Robert that the discussion is pretty minimal here since we require "extensive" discussion, especially once all the procedural and conduct discussion has been filtered out, but a volunteer has the prerogative to take the case nonetheless unless it has already been closed for that reason. I will not be participating further here, so it's back to KDS4444 to moderate if the other party chooses to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggesting this; I just did place a notice on his/her talk page (since (s)he has no user page and I failed in my attempts to reply to his/her talk page). However (s)he clearly had the article on his/her watchlist. Jzsj (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer comment It looks like the other party has now made a statement above with regards to the removal of tags on this article. The appearance of sock puppets removing tags is very disturbing— I had placed a COI warning on the talk page of Brenda Morris who is clearly an administrator of the organization and should never have edited the page (she has still not declared her COI anywhere on her user page, which I believe is a policy violation at this point, though another editor decided to out her as a paid contributor on the article talk page six days ago). I would not be surprised to discover that the new accounts were created either by her or one of her subordinates. But that is neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes. It looks like the other party has decided to back out of the discussion because he/ she was faced with an "army of sock puppets." I understand the sentiment completely, and wish I could do more to reveal who is behind them. However, it appears that Jzsj is a legitimate and unconnected editor with a sincere interest in improving the article, and has done so— perhaps even the other party in the dispute would agree (I have to note, however, Jzsj, that you removed an "Unsourced section" tag from the article recently without doing anything to address the tag— that should not have been done, and I ask you to either replace the tag or to fix the problem it indicated; just taking it out because you didn't like it is not the way tags are supposed to work, and casts doubt on your intentions with regard to the other tags this article had recently. Also, taking steps like that will put you in conflict with other editors, and that will end up bringing you back here before too long, which I would rather were not the case). KDS4444 (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in resolving this and the time you're taking on it. I don't see what you are referring to about my removing a tag without responding to it. I am not aware of ever doing this, please specify. My latest response to a tag was to accept that in-line citations were entirely inappropriate, though I thought they were the best way to handle the prospective schools in the Network. When removing the tag I added a reference to each of them. @KDS4444: Jzsj (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this version of the article user Arjayay placed an {{unsourced section}} tag on the "Future schools" section of the article. In this diff you removed that tag and in the edit summary you wrote "restore refs and remove tag". Let me know if you can see what I am talking about. On another note, I have now interacted with one of the would-be sockpuppets mentioned by Justeditingtoday above— the individual (The1pes) appears to be an uninvolved editor rather than a sockpuppet. I have left a COI warning on the talk page of the other account, LuckyAnna1985, but that has gotten no response. KDS4444 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Volunteer comment and closure I have now taken another look at the article and it looks like I made a mistake, Jzsj— references were indeed added to the article for that section and the removal of that tag appears to have been done correctly. My apologies. I don't know how I missed this. Anyhow, given that the other party, Justeditingtoday, has so far declined to participate, it no longer seems like we have a dispute. I am going to go ahead and mark this case as resolved. If Justeditingtoday changes his/her mind and wants to participate at this point, I will be glad to change the case status and continue to try to resolve the dispute— except that I just looked up the user's userpage, and it appears the account has been deleted for vandalism which means he/ she cannot edit this page anyway. KDS4444 (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time)

– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.

Filed by DavidK93 on 15:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Wish You Were Here (Once Upon a Time) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

DavidK93 (talk · contribs)
96.19.112.107 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An IP user and I disagree over how to describe a quote from the episode as a "Cultural Reference" in the article. The IP user reverted my version, a compromise version I proposed, and the same compromise version with a better source.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I asked for a third opinion. When one was provided, it suggested using a secondary source to avoid either of us interpreting the primary source, which is the episode itself. That led to my most recent edit, which was still not acceptable to the other editor.

How do you think we can help?

Assess if any version of the content meets Wikipedia standards, and engage the other user in conversation (as he or she has continued to edit the article but has stopped engaging in the discussion).

Summary of dispute by 96.19.112.107

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

Talk:Wish You_Were_Here_(Once_Upon_a_Time) discussion

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

Volunteer Note It appears that there has been adequate discussion on the talk page, including the involvement of a third opinion. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - There does not appear to have been any recent discussion either here or at the article talk page. Unless the parties express a continued interest in discussion, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm confused by the process here. The section states "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer." so I thought I was supposed to wait until I saw a "volunteer response," rather than a "volunteer note." I expected a volunteer to initiate discussion and instruct me what to do. So please let me know in what manner I'm supposed to continue the discussion beyond the information I provided in filing this item. --DavidK93 (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer note - Do both editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mryanbrown on 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Differing views as to the etymologically accurate definition of antisemitism. Consensus is that anti-Semitism is exclusively Jewish-centric yet there are no cited historical references that define antisemitism as exclusively referring to Jewry therefore etymological accuracy should dictate that the definition be generalized according to the etymological root--being Semitic--people.

I propose that the definition of anti-Semitism be change to include all Semitic people who are victims of non-Aryan prejudice and recommend that historical emphasis be placed upon the Jewish people immediately following this definition while simultaneously acknowledging the anti-semitic sentiments suffered by the Arab people and other Semitic races.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to discuss points of fact that Arab people are also victims of anti-Semitism. I understand that there is a warning acknowledging Arabs are also Semitic. This is not the same as acknowledging Arabs are also victims of anti-Semitism, which the Jewish-centric definition refuses to acknowledge.

How do you think we can help?

Objectively consider the position respective to policies regarding definitions.

Summary of dispute by El_C

Consensus is that Arabs (and others) may be Semites, but Anti-Arabism is not known as Antisemitism. El_C 08:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by NeilN

Quoting El C: "Cite reliable sources and gain consensus for your changes". No sources have been provided and so we can't really proceed to the gain consensus stage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antisemitism#Group hate discussion

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

Volunteer note - The use of the Stop Hand in what would otherwise be dispute resolution discussion is a form of shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - What we have here is an English word whose well-established meaning is not what would be inferred from construction. That is, although it would seem that "anti-Semitism" refers to prejudice against Semitic people, that is not its meaning in English. The job of Wikipedia is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the word in English refers to anti-Jewish prejudice, not to anti-Arabic prejudice. Those who dislike its eccentric usage in English may use other words to refer to prejudices. Having said that, I am recusing myself from moderating this case if it is opened for discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer note - Looking for a mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Volunteer note - Wanted you to know that I'm researching this issue and willing to moderate. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:Gay Dog Food#Notability_dispute

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Aleccat on 01:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability dispute (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Aleccat (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am partial to people editing notability off of this article, when there is not any real info on it, or extensive "non-trivial" sources. I've researched it, and if the article were to (in a perfect world) be fixed, it would be nearly entirely based on composition and critical reception.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Adding notability tag, making discussion in talk page explaining my reasoning.

How do you think we can help?

IMO, merge the article to the artist's page.

Talk:Gay Dog Food#Notability_dispute 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:Thriller (Michael_Jackson_album)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Carmaker1 on 07:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Talk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs)
Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I strongly disagree with a need to provide an overly broad recording period range in the info box for Michael Jackson's Thriller album and that of the Track Listing section, which is very incorrect for specific reasons I believe. User: Synthwave.94 has been extremely intent on undoing a large of amount music-related edits of mine the past few weeks, even outside of Michael Jackson related content (MC Hammer, etc).

In 1981, Michael Jackson allegedly began working on demos for songs he would later record in 1982 for what became the "Thriller" LP. "Billie Jean" was amongst some of those early examples from 1981. However, the first recording was a duet with Paul McCartney from April 14 to 16, 1982, "The Girl Is Mine".

Despite that, the album project itself has been reported many times (in retrospect) to be an 8-week recording effort during the fall of 1982, ending on Monday, November 8, 1982. I disagree strongly with how the "Track Listing" lists arbitrary and unconfirmed recording dates without verification for 8 of 9 album tracks, yet User: Synthwave.94 seems to be under the impression it is their sole authority to decide what is allowed and what isn't, nor willing to listen to the other side and is dismissive.

Fall 1982 (reported in retrospect on occasion in some documentaries/interviews) very much fits the 8-week period of Monday September 13, 1982 to Monday, November 8, 1982. April 14 to November 8 is not an 8-week recording period nor was the album recorded from April 14 to June 9, 1982, another 8-week period on the front end.

In that case, I wanted to present that general recording for the album itself ran from September to November 8, 1982. Late August is even dismissed from that, as Aug. 31, 1982 to November 8, 1982 already reaches 10 weeks. The fact that narrators in a few Michael Jackson documentaries had stated "Jackson went into the studio in the fall of 1982 to work on his follow-up to Off The Wall for 8 weeks",is why I wanted to add such content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened up a new section on the talk page of Thriller and User: Synthwave.94 has not bothered to respond nor try to seek a resolution on this matter, but seems more intent on reverting any of my contributions to music-related topics.

How do you think we can help?

To review the content I have provided and overall matter at hand, to decide if the contradiction I am addressing is imagined and needs more evidence. Or if what I have provided is satisfactory, to be fully reflected in the Thriller album article and that of recording dates for the singles. They have reverted my content 3 times, essentially violating 3RR in a sense. User:Fishhead2100 might have an idea of what behaviour I am referring to, albeit on a slightly different note.

Summary of dispute by Synthwave.94

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

Talk:Thriller (Michael_Jackson_album) 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:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform

– New discussion.

Filed by Kirkoconnell on 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Kirkoconnell (talk · contribs)
RA0808 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Basically, the issue at hand is the recommendations of the report. The committee had several members from several parties on it. Each member could make recommendations. The user I am discussing it with cherry picks the sections that support PR for the electoral system. The over-all view of the report, which has not been acted on, is to NOT bring in a PR system, but rather a system that rates a certain level on a scale, which in no way proclaims one voting system or another.

Almost off the bat, this person has insulted my intelligence or my knowledge on the matter, which is fairly extensive. He out-right rejects any proof I provide and solely focuses on the sections that fit his narrative. When bias was pointed out, he doubled-down on insults, refused to understand how the report was compiled and refuted his bias by just stating that he is not, when clearly he has been. I asked him to recuse himself from further edits, given said bias, made more personal attacks and said he would not. We are at an impasse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I recused myself from editing, requested the other user do the same. They out-right refused, and continued to engage in personal attacks instead of addressing the sourced concerns I had with his interpretation of the report.

How do you think we can help?

A third party review the case, one with governmental experience in Canada could not hurt, though it does seem that the PR people seem pretty out-of-gear on making sure this article says "Canada proclaims PR is the way to go". In fact, it does nothing of the sort. Nor will their be a referendum. One recommendation is to NOT have one, another one is TO have one. At best, the report is un-reliable, at worse, contradictory. So someone who could sort out that mess.

Summary of dispute by RA0808

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

My interest with this article has been to make the relevant section reflect the contents of the report as clearly and concisely as possible. The report's recommendation for a proportional electoral system and holding a referendum on the subject is clearly stated and has also been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources (see the article).

When User:Moeburn disagreed with the other user's removal of content stating the report recommended a proportional representation system and holding a referendum on the subject and suggested that the other user was splitting hairs and/or misunderstanding the usage of the term "proportional representation", I concurred and restored the content. The user responded with unfounded accusations of bias directed at both of us. I chose to assume good faith and provided the other user a brief summary of how proportional representation is a descriptor of multiple systems, not a system itself, and provided the specific recommendation in the report (Recommendation 12) which recommended a referendum. The user then claimed the recommendations beyond Recommendations 1 and 2 were "tacked-on" representations which were somehow not valid, and accused me of being "incredibly biased". The user's later responses included claims that 4-5 of the recommendations in the report contradict each other (not specifying which), stating I was cherry-picking from the report, comparing the interpretations of results to Islam, and again claiming that the report was contradictory.

As for the user's claims of personal attacks, I disagree that I have attacked them. I concede that my comment about the user disregarding "sections of the report because [they] don't understand the topic" could have been better-phrased, but I don't believe they constitute a personal attack because I genuinely believe there is misinterpretation of the report. After reading the comments above I continue to maintain that belief. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Canadian House_of_Commons_Special_Committee_on_Electoral_Reform discussion

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

Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and proper notice has been given. This case can be opened by a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Reza Aslan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Azarbarzin on 22:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Talk:Reza Aslan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Roscelese (talk · contribs)
Azarbarzin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Reza Aslan is on the advisory board of an organization called NIAC:

https://www.niacouncil.org/about-niac/staff-board/

This simple and obvious fact is persistently reverted/deleted as poorly sourced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have made every effort to resolve this, including RFc and discussion on Reza Aslan's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

I believe a brief explanation to Roscelese pertaining Aslan being on the advisory board of NIAC and the inclusion of that fact on Aslan's page could resolve this unnecessary edit war. The user persistently deletes that reference and argues that it is poorly sourced !

Summary of dispute by Roscelese

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

Talk:Reza Aslan 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.

Category talk:Jews#Indigenous peoples of Western Asia

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bellezzasolo on 09:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

Category talk:Jews#Indigenous peoples of Western Asia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Debresser (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whether or not Jews should be cateogrised as an ethnic group within the Middle East, which has led to a degree of edit warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

Clarifying categorisation policy on Wikipedia

Summary of dispute by Debresser

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

Category talk:Jews

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.

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 ====Seventh statements by editors====
+The RFC seems a little unclear.  It talks about this being the last sentence of the article, which isn't right.  Also, I think the extra sentence that C would be replacing should be added to the wording of A and B.  And is the quotation mark in C significant?  One more thing: are we (the original editors involved in this issue) encouraged to participate in the survey or exclude ourselves from the survey? —[[User:Firespeaker|Firespeaker]] ([[User talk:Firespeaker|talk]]) 04:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 == Talk:Singapore#Sovereignty ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards