Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

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
Naseem Hamed	Closed	Mac Dreamstate (t)	13 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,
White Zimbabweans	In Progress	Katangais (t)	2 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	23 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	In Progress	Traumnovelle (t)	2 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Traumnovelle (t)	12 hours
Macarons	Closed	62.211.155.242 (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days,

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 03:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Film censorship_in_China#Runtime_columns

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Supermann on 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC).

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:Film censorship in China#Runtime columns (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Supermann (talk · contribs) TenTonParasol (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors, but primarily TenTonParasol, think having a runtime column for censored films in China and adding The Mummy (2017 film) is OR, violates NPOV against Chinese Communist Party (CCP), SOAPBOXing, SYNTH and all that stuff. However, I would argue it's not since the CCP's argument on censorship has been fully documented and having the runtime column provides a quantitative approach to the page. How else could one explain the difference in runtime minutes, were it not for censorship when China does have a censor which has the final say on movie release? As for The Mummy, even TenTonParasol admitted that "Personally, I agree with you that The Mummy is probably censored." I would have really liked to go for mediation, since I have been invoking IAR, if not the fifth pillar: Wikipedia has no firm rules, for a legitimate reason. This is not to mention Wikipedia itself has been and still is a censorship victim in China. I shouldn't even have to invoke the late Dr. Liu Xiaobo here to beg for the consideration that censorship should be properly documented. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Exhausting discussion on the talk page primarily between us. Other editors in the so-called consensus could well flip, if TenTonParasol changes her mind. How do you think we can help? You can help by commenting if IAR or the fifth pillar could apply here to make that Film Censorship in China page much better by having the runtime columns and an entry regarding The Mummy. Many thanks. Summary of dispute by TenTonParasol Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute is over the inclusion of runtime columns in the article noting the original runtime of the film and the runtime of the film as released in China. Supermann advocated for the inclusion of the columns as a means to present evidence that a film was censored. Multiple other editors, including myself, asserted that the presentation of a runtime difference as sole evidence of censorship is original research as it makes an interpretative statement about primary source facts; all statements of censorship should be made by a secondary source. About a month ago, consensus was formed that runtime columns should not be included and that films should be included in the tables on the basis of secondary sources stating the film has been censored by a state body. We as editors cannot put forward an explanation for why a difference in runtime exists; we must find secondary sources that do so. At this time, in a discussion between mostly myself and Supermann, Supermann challenged consensus, feeling that enough time has passed for it to shift and citing IAR allows for the exception to the runtime columns and the inclusion of certain films. As for the quote Supermann added of me in his summary of the dispute, my full quote was: "Personally, I agree with you that The Mummy is probably censored. Does my opinion matter a damn whit? No. If there is no secondary source containing the word "censored" in it, we cannot say that it was censored." I do not appreciate being misquoted. I maintain firmly that IAR is not grounds to ignore the verifiability and neutral point of view policies; they are also members of the five pillars and are much more core. If we can ignore verifiability policies and NPOV, it becomes a free for all. It also does not allow for pushing an article as a platform for advocacy and, though DRN is not the place to discuss editor behavior, Supermann has been editing tendentiously. The mention of Liu Xiaobo has no relevance to the topic nor how Wikipedia policies ought to be documented. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Talk:Film censorship_in_China#Runtime_columns discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. To clarify about history of the discussion of the dispute, it was discussed a month ago at Talk:Film censorship in China#Changes, and before that briefly at the bottom of the section at Talk:Film censorship in China#Lost City of Z & Dangal. Both also deal with the inclusion of films. Editors involved in previous discussions are: @Erik, Hoverfish, Kmhkmh, CWH, and Alex Shih, though all discussion from the past two weeks are between myself and Supermann. I am unsure if they are considered part of the dispute at hand, and so am unsure if I ought to formally add them, but I am pinging them as a means to invite them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. This volunteer is not entirely sure what is meant by a runtime column, but it is up to the moderator to get the editors to explain the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) In an attempt to clarify what is meant by runtime columns at this stage, much of the article is lists of films in table format and the dispute is over whether a column should be added to the table noting differing runtime of the films. This oldid of the article is a version in which these columns existed in the article, "Original runtime" and "Runtime in China", before they were removed. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment - I am neither accepting nor declining the case, but now I infer that the reduction in runtime of a movie indicates how much of the movie was taken out by the censor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator Please read the rules in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors Two movie runtime columns of the prevailing release and China release, backed up by secondary sources such as BBFC, AMCTheaters for the prevailing and Douban, Maoyan for Chinese, would give a quantitative picture of the censorship issue. Once we could have those columns, then we don't necessarily need to wait for text-based secondary sources to call out if films like The Mummy (2017 film) is censored or not. Text-based secondary sources sometimes lack the will, the manpower, or budget to write such revealing articles, given the overall censoring climate of the country. On the list, for example, The Matrix Reloaded, Resident Evil: Afterlife, Prometheus (2012 film), Resident Evil: Retribution, Fury (2014 film), Resident Evil: Retribution, Rush (2013 film), Allied (film) all lack good text-based secondary sources, despite the China Film Insider citation calls them so and we could guess the censorship reason being violence and sexual content. But of course what I am trying to say is once we are aware of secondary sources writing a specific movie, we would cite them immediately as further backup to give more context and analysis. I don't think the columns would be trampling on WP policies to the extent of being outrageous. Despite the other editor say, "runtime difference does not always mean state censorship and state censorship does not always mean runtime difference", based on the list of 37 released yet edited films, only three were possibly not the direct work of state censors pre-release. But the state censors come into play once again absolutely and definitively, given the June 2017 notice to ban all complete and uncensored version. So the censorship problem based on the current population is 92% (34 divided by 37) if not 100%. Wait a minute, you know what, according to a new Chinese citation that I just discovered at https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Ju70xqyC5heBTivbD_OEiA, I have under-counted another 55 edited films from 2010-2017 that were simply not reported by western media. Runtime columns would have clearly shown this and I have independently verified the situation. But I know the other editor dislikes INDISCRIMINATE.Supermann (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Films listed as censored must be verified by secondary sources. Always, full stop. These two columns—one for the original runtime and one for the runtime in China—were used state that films were censored because "there is a ten minute difference between the two columns". The issue is not that runtimes themselves are unsourced; they are sourced. These columns and editor speculation for the difference in values were used in place of secondary sources. The fact that there was a difference between the two columns was used to say that a film was censored, often without any citation to a secondary source supporting such a statement. Regardless, runtime difference does not always mean state censorship and state censorship does not always mean runtime difference, refuting that the deduction is "apparent". Because of this, these columns were removed by consensus. Reimplementing them will reintroduce original research. We cannot make statements based on our own interpretations, then wait for secondary sources to confirm. We must always cite to secondary sources, and never insert our own interpretation. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator First, stop editing the article. That includes stop adding movies to the list. Did you read the instructions? Second, the article currently does not have a runtime column. Is one editor saying that it should? An editor points out, correctly, that we should not be doing original research. If the runtime of the original and the runtime in China are different, can this be mentioned, if properly sourced, in the Notes? Will each editor please state, again, in one paragraph, what they think should be done differently in the article, if anything? Second statements by editors Indeed, Supermann is asking that the columns be reinstated. Yes, if a runtime is significant to note, contextualized, and properly sourced, current consensus is to note it in the notes column. Examples of this on the page currently include Cloud Atlas, Alien: Covenant, and Iron Man 3. I believe nothing ought to be done to the article regarding this matter. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Apologies on the continuous edits earlier, because I happened to stumble upon rare new findings. As indicated by TenTonParasol earlier at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Film_censorship_in_China&oldid=785341359, that was the version of two runtime columns that I had implemented when I initially created the page. It's a quantitative/mathematical approach to display the censorship issue. The Douban citation for the Chinese release runtime actually shows the two different runtimes on their website as well. If one doesn't understand Chinese, s/he could just use translation extension in its browser and would immediately verify what I had said is true. So in my mind, Douban, if not Maoyan has already explicitly concluded that the censorship exists by using numbers. It's not me doing original research at all. For example, at https://movie.douban.com/subject/11803087/ for Alien: Covenant. Readers would find 122 min (for prevailing release in the west) and 116 min for Mainland China release. Even uneducated readers stumbling onto the Douban citation should now understand such a difference is due to state censors pre-release and post-release! If they still don't get it, then additional text-based secondary sources might further spell out it was due to politics, sex, violence, etc. Due to the authoritarian communist party rule, Douban can't exactly spell out the word "censor" and the reason there, but it's a fact now after all the primary sources and secondary sources we have used. Comments on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. TenTonParasol is having her head in the sand like an ostrich who doesn't want to face the fact. The so-called consensus is misplaced or shows a lack of understanding into the subject. If we don't show columns or add films simply because no text-based English secondary sources have written about due to shortage in manpower, budget, willingness, say for the additional 50+ movies which includes The November Man, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film), London Has Fallen, etc., we would be doing a disservice to this page, making it indirectly censored by the state censor which has been operating opaquely. Again, everything could be properly sourced at least to Chinese citations, but I have used English sources whenever I could. It's not that I don't want further contextual analysis by secondary sources to spell out the reason for censorship, but we have to understand the tough environment the media biz is in now. I'm simply appalled by the existence of those additional 50+ films. I'll stop here before they accuse me of soapboxing again. Supermann (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Please state, in one short paragraph, what changes should be made to the article if any. Comment on content, not contributors. Also do not soapbox about the Chinese government. We already know that it censors movies, or there wouldn't be an article here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors The article ought to remain as it is, no changes: no runtime columns, additions to "List of edited films" firmly supported by secondary sources, and any significant runtime differences noted in the existing notes column with contextualization and sourcing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F

– New discussion.

Filed by Mercy11 on 04:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:List of cults of personality#Can someone get rid of the United States section.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mercy11 (talk · contribs)
• Fierysunset (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I expanded a section in an article and another editor (Fierysunset) removed my edits. After I reinstated my edits with an explanation and Talk Page discussion, the editor undid my edits again. His explanation is that the sources of my edits (Newsweek, Huffington Post, The American Interest, and The Hill) are biased. The editor is unwilling to accept WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BIASED and similar policies, and defines his own criteria for what I can include. It has become increasingly more difficult to discuss the content because he is being motivated by strong political views.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Staying away from edit warring. Invited editor to add cites of his own with the opposite views. Being neutral in my wording of the section prose. Because 2 other editors initially started the Talk Page section about the article's section in question (but have since not participated again), the dispute did not seem to be a candidate for WP:3O.

How do you think we can help?

Someone needs to help get across to FIREYSUNSET that so long as edits are relevant, backed by reliable sources, and not undue weight, it is OK for the information to be added to the article. The editor seems to be having difficulty working with me because he appears to be perceiving me as his adversary. The editor gets very excited (belligerent) when I respond to his Talk Page comments.

Summary of dispute by Mercy11

• Reply to Moderator--Like you, I agree with part of what NRP says. Terms like fascist and COP have been tossed around indiscriminately. Others such terms nowadays are thug, terrorist, dictator, and the like.

I researched widely acceptable bibliographic sources to see if there was a basis to consider "Donald Trump's Cult of Personality" an outright Fringe, and found that a search for "Donald Trump"+"cult of personality" in Google Books yielded 1,100 hits. A similar search in Google Scholar returned 168 hits. Likewise in Google News, many were listed. These are more than a handful scholarly sources. BTW, this Trump-focus in no way exempts Obama, Clinton, Lincoln, Washington and perhaps others from the list, which I believe should be researched further to improve the article.

I have no objection to applying WP:Fringe, so long as it is done alongside with WP:5P. I also like the ideal, which he expressed elsewhere, of improving the base Cult of personality article, which I think is a disaster and leads to problems. When applying WP:FRINGE we need to make sure it is a fringe theory because others -i.e., RSs- say so, and not because in our own editorial wisdom we say so. (The claim that Israel was behind 9/11, for example, is fringe, *and* we can find WP:RSs that have debunked it as fringe.) We can't just claim "fringe" and walk away. That said, what sources have debunked Trumps' COP so far? If available, let's add them to the section. When a believe is widely held (e.g., "Hitler had a COP") you will -not- find a single RS source trying to debunk it. Mercy11 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Moderator -- You commented "Many books and scholarly sources--you pointed to fail the reliability test.Many are at best tangentially related to the topic.Can you specifically point to about 4/5 of them in both the categories?", and I am trying to understand how your question relates to this dispute.

1st, can you provide a link to the WP:Reliability test you are alluding to? And, if you meant WP:RS, can you state unambiguously the specific section of WP:RS that is violated?

2, what basis are you using to categorize the sources as "tangentially related to the topic"? That is, can you define, in as quantitative terms as possible, what you consider a source not tangentially related to the topic?

3, if you have already judged "many" of the sources listed by Google Books and Google Scholar, etc., as tangentially related to the topic, why do you want 4/5 of them, i.e., what purpose would that serve?

Last, what do you mean by "both categories". And, if you meant "Donald Trump" and "Cult of Personality", please note this are not 2 categories, but 2 filters to indicate the search is only for published works containing both of those terms in each and every publication.

From my concerns, hopefully you will be able to gather that I am trying to understand how your questions --and comments-- above bear significance to the dispute under discussion, namely, the admissibility of the 5 reference entries used as citations in the USA section of the article. As a matter of summary, here are the 5 cites that explain why we are in this DRN:

Click "[SHOW]" on the right to see inside ->

I added 5 cites (4 of them unique) to the 1 cite from The Chicago Tribune another editor had there already. After my addition, there were a total of 6 cites, 5 of them unique. The other editor (fierysunset) reduced them to 2. Per WP's WP:RS all 6 cites satisfy WP:RS. For reference, here are the 5 RS sourced entries (4 unique) I added and which are the root of this dispute: A Newsweek article compared the political tactics employed by Donald Trumps to those of Adolf Hitler. Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service professor Joseph Sassoon explains that "when Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, 'this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches.'" In his piece, Adam Garfinkle states that due to the short amount of time that Donald Trump has been president, what bears watching is not only the President himself but his movement, referring to the followers that brought him to power. In Donald Trump’s Cult of Personality, Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi in their personal brand, financial clout, charisma and media strategy. Jordan Dicciccio argues that a personal jet with his own name on it, claiming “he is the only one who can fix everything”, erecting monuments (Trump World Tower, Trump Taj Majal, Trump Building) that invoke confidence in the leader depicted, imposing strict control on media and the way journalists speak about him, and denying responsibility for everything bad to befall the country and taking sole responsibility for anything good, are some of the traits that reveal the parallels between Donald Trump and a totalitarian leader working to advance his cult of personality.

I am trying to hit some common ground here and if we can eliminate those areas we all agree to (e.g., perhaps WP:V) then perhaps we can focus on those areas where we might have expressed some differences (e.g., perhaps WP:WEIGHT?, etc.).

Mercy11 (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Moderator [@Winged Blades of Godric:] -- You commented "I have strong exceptions about whether this is a reliable source.Also, what about scholarly sources?"

My heart is not set on that one citation in particular. It would had been beneficial, however, if you had said what it is that you find so strongly objectionable with The Hill. That paper is highly regarded in Washington. And, yes, as for 'scholarly sources', there is a ton of scholarly sources regarding Donald Trump's cult of personality. As for WP:WEIGHT, I think the following --partially if not wholly-- addresses that topic of our discussion head-on: Experts Do Identify at Least Two "levels", if you will, of Cults of Personality:

(1) At the top level, you have "the nefarious 20th-century individuals: Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao."

(2) At the bottom level, you have "the somewhat less gruesome ones: Franco, Perón, Tito, Ataturk, Castro, Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and others." Then, there is a huge body of literature liking others to CoPs, including the British Monarchy, Putin, Trump & Obama - even Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln & FDR.

That said, I tend to agree with Fierysunset that Trump does not belong in the same class of CoPs as Mao or Stalin (see his edit summary), and more so now that we have cite/s for it. But let's make no mistake, tons of reliable sources exist full of statements making it clear Trump has a cult of personality.

4 Trumps Cult Sources

Donald Trump and the 'Oxygen of Publicity': Branding, Social Media, and Mass Media in the 2016 Presidential Primary Elections. (American Political Science Association Annual Meeting 2016.) Sarah Oates (Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland) and Wendy W. Moe (University of Maryland - Robert H. Smith School of Business). 25 August 2016. Post-Truth, Complicity and International Politics. Philip Conway. E-International Relations. 29 March 2017. Political philosophy suggests that Trump will either double down on his behavior or eventually give in to institutional opposition. Daniel Kato. (US Politics, Queen Mary University of London). London School of Economics US Centre’s on American Politics and Policy. 8 February 2017. How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution. Joel Pollak and Larry Schweikart, (University of Dayton). Regnery Publishing. 2017.

On the other hand, I disagree with User:NinjaRobotPirate's idea that "at least one peer-reviewed, academic source before anyone can be added to the list." While it is a noble ideal, in practice, the entire article would fall apart: there isn't currently one single peer-reviewed academic source in the entire 121 citations of the article's reference list. We need to be cognizant of the reality that improving an article in a constant work-in progress. Mercy11 (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by FIREYSUNSET

See my comments.Winged Blades Godric 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So, first I will say that I have to defend Trump here, even though I would rather not. I also would like to say the users Eddediteddie and NinjaRobotPirate has first asked to remove it, and has repeatedly commented as well on the talk page about this, so you should invite them as well. This dispute has a clear answer. Donald Trump has not ever had statues built for him, songs praising him, or any sort of cult like behavior. I understand that you were clearly offended by my comparison to Mao or Stalin, so I will pull out some more figures, but less crazed. One of these figures is one that you have pulled out, Nasser. And another one is Ataturk. Both of these figures are highly revered in their respective countries and even in the region as a whole. Nasser's ideology of Arab Socialism influenced Gaddafi and Saddam. His ideas were so popular at the time of his death in 1970, that people chanted on the street (see my bio section below). Ataturk is even more so an example. Numerous public bridges in Turkey are named for him. His face is the only face printed on the Turkish lira. Statues of him are everywhere. His political legacy influences Turkey's modern CHP and the secularist ideology of it, which is gaining momentum in the face of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It is also illegal to criticize Ataturk in Turkey, which explains much of the censorship that is going on in Turkey. Trump cannot dream of this level of popularity. You clearly oppose him strongly. I am no supporter, either. I doubt many people are at this point. Nasser section from Wikipedia: Almost immediately after the procession began, mourners engulfed Nasser's coffin chanting, "There is no God but Allah, and Nasser is God's beloved… Each of us is Nasser."[274] Police unsuccessfully attempted to quell the crowds and, as a result, most of the foreign dignitaries were evacuated.[274] The final destination was the Nasr Mosque, which was afterwards renamed Abdel Nasser Mosque, where Nasser was buried.[274] Because of his ability to motivate nationalistic passions, "men, women, and children wept and wailed in the streets" after hearing of his death, according to Nutting.[269] The general Arab reaction was one of mourning, with thousands of people pouring onto the streets of major cities throughout the Arab world.[274] Over a dozen people were killed in Beirut as a result of the chaos, and in Jerusalem, roughly 75,000 Arabs marched through the Old City chanting, "Nasser will never die."[274] As a testament to his unchallenged leadership of the Arab people, following his death, the headline of the Lebanese Le Jour read, "One hundred million human beings—the Arabs—are orphans."[276] Sherif Hetata, a former political prisoner[277] and later member Nasser's ASU,[278] said that "Nasser's greatest achievement was his funeral. The world will never again see five million people crying together."[273] I would also like to include some historical sources on the talk page, as I have thoroughly looked through the page. A few years ago, back in mid-2015, a Breitbart article was included in, describing Obama as a cult leader. It provided convincing evidence as well, similar to that of your articles. It is indeed, however, biased as well. This makes it inappropriate to include due to the pure conservative sourcing, just as your articles are pure leftist sourcing. In no way would it be considered appropriate to include it. Obama had people like Jaime Fox call him "Our Lord and Savior", and numerous celebrities endorsing him and making videos of it. He was more popular as a president than Trump, and yet there is no cult section for Obama. The mainstream media loved Obama. Yet there is no section for him right here for him, because it would be biased smearing. So if you want a section calling Trump a cult, then Obama is one as well. Honestly, my solution is to just say the role of president in the US is basically a cult-like status, anyways, no matter who it is. It is not really that strong, but nonetheless, I will compromise. Another point here is the lack of counter sources. Articles from The Hill, HuffPo, etc. allege that Donald Trump has a cult following. You state that I must keep these sources while simultaneously get more from pro-Trump sources. This is just pure nonsense. This is like someone alleging that Hillary Clinton was a closet Communist party member. It is presumed to be negative until actual convincing and objective evidence is provided. Just like a presence of a Trump cult is presumed negative until you prove it. I have copied your citations one by one and will refute them: A Newsweek article compared the political tactics employed by Donald Trumps to those of Adolf Hitler.[1] - A comparison of Trump to Hitler is nothing new. A comparison of Obama to Hitler isn't anything new, either. This is just a smear campaign that has been thrown around multiple times. I could get you numerous links to both Trump and Obama being compared to him. Comparing a politician to Hitler in the US is nothing new. Heck, Obama even had an entire birther conspiracy. Link to Obama being compared: https://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/05/09/13-mind-blowing-similarities-between-hitler-and-obama-video/ Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service professor Joseph Sassoon explains that "when Trump says he’s his own best adviser and has no speechwriters, 'this is really a prototype of Saddam or Qaddafi or Nasser...the wanting to control the language of their speeches.'"[2] - Having one's own speechwriter is not a sign of demagoguery. It has long been an attempt by politicians to say speeches "from the heart". See the link from WaPost below for that. See this link and go to the fourth section https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-political-speechwriting/2016/07/22/a23ee460-4f70-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html?utm_term=.8e3c9970bd0a In his piece, Adam Garfinkle states that due to the short amount of time that Donald Trump has been president, what bears watching is not only the President himself but his movement, referring to the followers that brought him to power.[3] - Fair enough, but Obama had some pretty brainwashed supporters as well. There were people who called him "Our Lord and Savior". In Donald Trump’s Cult of Personality, Ruth Ben-Ghiat compares Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi in their personal brand, financial clout, charisma and media strategy.[4] - This is similar to the one above. Obama has also had high charisma and media strategy. He was deemed to be the savior to all of America's problems back in 2008 by the media. "He would solve the financial crash. He would heal racial tensions. He would get the working class back to work. He would save middle America." Donald Trump is a master of using the media, but he was never loved as much as Obama could be. There is a book on this, called the Obama Nation. I'm sure you would be offended by it, as it would have a counterbias, but against Obama not Trump. Jordan Dicciccio argues that a personal jet with his own name on it, claiming “he is the only one who can fix everything”, erecting monuments (Trump World Tower, Trump Taj Majal, Trump Building) that invoke confidence in the leader depicted, imposing strict control on media and the way journalists speak about him, and denying responsibility for everything bad to befall the country and taking sole responsibility for anything good, are some of the traits that reveal the parallels between Donald Trump and a totalitarian leader working to advance his cult of personality.[5]} - Fair enough, again, but his jets, buildings, and monuments are private property. There is no Trump bridge that is right in DC or something like that. "Strict control on the media" is a lie. Donald Trump may hate the media, but he hasn't made it a crime to criticize him like it is to criticize Castro in Cuba or Ataturk in Turkey. This is just fearmongering. This is just smearing. If anything, its just nonsense trying to get views and more magazine subscriptions. The media is falling for Trump by getting him more famous. The "<insert US president name> is Hitler" campaign is old, and won't work" You also allege that I am being belligerent. This is true, because I am tired of people sticking political agendas in something that is supposed to be neutral. Can we just apply objective standards to all US presidents, regardless of bias. A third opinion is needed here, preferably from Eddediteddie or NinjaRobotPirate who have commented on this before either me or Mercy11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fierysunset (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC) FIREYSUNSET (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NinjaRobotPirate

I'll add a header here for my views. I think too many of the citations are to primary sources, such as editorials and newspaper columns. This is especially important when dealing with defamatory claims about living people. Like the near-meaningless political insult "fascist", accusations of fostering a cult of personality are common in the media. This is why I've suggested we require at least one peer-reviewed, academic source before anyone can be added to the list. This was rejected by at least one person involved in the current dispute, who seems to have interpreted my suggestion as a proposal to abandon verifiability. Instead, I think due weight has already been thrown out in this article, and it's heavily lopsided toward indiscriminate labeling without any care toward whether the views expressed are fringe. The current dispute relies heavily on citing WP:V, but it completely ignores WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of_cults_of_personality#Can_someone_get_rid_of_the_United_States_section.3F discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not listed some of the editors who have taken part in the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--

Suitability--CY. I am willing to moderate the dispute after the other party has filed their opening statement.Winged Blades Godric 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion on talk page Y Informed all parties N.Informed the lone co-party on behalfY

• *Meanwhile, all parties should:

N Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).

N Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.

N Abstain from commenting/aspersing on contributors in their respective statements or actions anywhere.Comment here, on content instead.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry for being late!Going through the contents!Winged Blades ^Godric 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Fierysunset:--
  • The section heading is summary of dispute.So most importantly, be concise.
  • I collapsed your entire section.Per avoiding original research and avoiding synthesis, there's no point discussing over whether the sources were correct/wrong in describing the Trump personality cult. You could question their reliability and bias but not the verifiability of the content published in supposedly reliable sources.Another important step would be to reshape your arguments in light of weight.
  • Pinging NinjaRobotPirate for his opinions/views.Winged Blades ^Godric 07:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @NinjaRobotPirate:--Thanks for your summary par excellence!Winged Blades ^Godric 12:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Mercy11:--I tend to agree with much of what NRP has written.How do you feel about his way to tackle the issue of eliminating entries based on fringe reporting and address concerns of due weight.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Everybody:--Please keep your own replies/comments in your own sections.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• I will be posting some questions for both the parties tomorrow.Going for a sleep!Anyway, don't confuse numbers with quality.Winged Blades ^Godric 18:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--@Mercy11:--Sorry for being late! Many books and scholarly sources--you pointed to fail the reliability test.Many are at best tangentially related to the topic.Can you specifically point to about 4/5 of them in both the categories?Winged Blades ^Godric 10:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--Seen.Will be replying soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment:--I have strong exceptions about whether this is a reliable source.Also, what about scholarly sources?Winged Blades ^Godric 16:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thompson submachine gun

– New discussion.

Filed by Bellerophon5685 on 22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Thompson submachine gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Bellerophon5685 (talk · contribs)
• Trekphiler (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is the first time I have used mediation, so I might be posting this in the wrong place. This dispute has actually been over the category links in a number of articles and has been discussed extensively here.

I was creating narrower introductions by year page and created cats for weapons introduced by year. After User:Trekphiler reverted the edit for .22 Remington Automatic because it was ammunition I expanded the cats to "Weapons and ammunition introduced by year" User:Trekphiler has continued to revert the edits on the reasoning that items such as the Thomson machine gun do not count as ammunition and therefore the Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in 1919 was incorrect. I feel that any reasonable person looking at the cat and page would see that the tommy gun, and other items User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve this on the talk page at the Firearms project, to no avail.

How do you think we can help?

Clarify that the meaning of the wording in Category:Weapons and ammunition introduced in X year is inclusive, meaning it includes BOTH weapons AND ammunition. NOT items that are both weapons AND ammunition. I feel this should be obvious to any reasonable person.

Summary of dispute by Bellerophon5685

• This dispute is not solely, or even mostly, about the Tommy gun. It is a dispute between two editors that has been going on across multiple pages. The Tommy gun was just a representative example. This is there first time I have gone to mediation, so I am not sure what the precise procedure is. From what I read on the dispure resolution page, this seemed like the most appropriate forum.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 1.
• It is a dispute over categories - I created several new cats under the introductions by year - typefaces and fonts by year of introduction, flags by year of introduction etc. I created the cat weapons by year and included an ammunition cartridge. User:Trekphiler reverted this because it was ammunition. I amended the name of the cat to weapons and ammunition. Trekphiler has repreated undone these cats because the articles I put the cats in, such as the Tompson machine gun, ar not ammunition and other articles, such as .22 cartridge, are not weapons. I would think it would be obvious to any reasonable viewer that the cat is meant to include both ammo and weapons and that not each item is supposed to be both. I do not think Trekphiler is harassing me, because I think he is editing in good faith, but I think he is wrong to keep on undoing these edits.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to Vol. note 2.
• I never said that. I used it as a representative example of the dispute we have been having.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Transposed.Was posted in reply to comment 1 by Trekphiler.

Summary of dispute by Trekphiler

• This didn't start with the Thompson. I find categorizing weapons & ammunition together, as if they are the same thing, absurd. Moreover, categorizing guided bombs (Fritz X) in a "weapons & ammunition" category is ridiculous. Is Tallboy "ammunition"? What, exactly, is wrong with categorizing them separately? And notice, this "joint category" was following categorizing ammunition as "weapon", which strikes me as an effort to demonize; claiming this all started with the Thompson is, at best, disingenuous. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Redacted 196.52.16.16 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"User:Trekphiler fell into the "weapons" part of the cat and that not every item in the cat supposed to be both a weapon AND ammunition." I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't presume to know what I was thinking. And if you'd bothered to pay the slightest attention to my remarks on the Firearms Project page, you'd realize it's the lumping together of two things that are in no way alike, not to mention adding things that are in no way "ammunition", into a common category, that has been, & is, what troubles me.

"Trekphiler is just here for an argument." I repeat, I'd appreciate not having presumptions of my thinking. I am frustrated by Bellerophon5685's unwillingness to address my concerns about using the same category for disparate items. I've offered numerous examples of things that, by the same reasoning, should be categorized together, but aren't & won't be. For instance, do you intend gasoline & cars to be jointly categorized, by this rationale? Why not? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thompson submachine gun discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at a WikiProject talk page, but not at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - This noticeboard is for disputes about article content. There isn't any single proper forum for a dispute between two editors that is going on across multiple pages. If there are disputes about the content of multiple articles, they can be discussed at multiple talk pages. If an editor is harassing, hounding, or bullying another editor, that is a conduct dispute that can go to WP:ANI, but not every claim of harassment, hounding, or bullying is what it is stated to be. Please state more clearly what the nature and substance of the dispute is. It might be appropriate to ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Please do not reply to other's questions/comments irrespective of the truth-value.You are here because the usual back and forth has failed.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment---- I am going through the contents of the dispute and will prob. be the moderator.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today

– New discussion.

Filed by 83.54.140.34 on 08:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Phys.org#Edits today (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• 83.54.140.34 (talk · contribs) who has created the account Naesco (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This discussion involves edits of 3 articles: ScienceDaily, Phys.org and Eurekalert. Jytdog has placed several references to churnalism, and removed all other content, that he claimed to be SPS. Deleting all information and only leaving the churnalism statement makes these articles biased and non-neutral. He cites only blogs sites that discuss churnalism, making the whole articles opinion-based, rather than fact based. Not to mention that these are the blogs where science journalists from rivalry websites discuss influence of churnalism on science journalism (COI?)

He rejects any edits with links to WP:ABOUTSELF even if they make sense, or even with links to externals sites with whois data, traffic stats etc.

I have requested a 3O, that agreed that these articles should be written in more neutral style. Jytdog has rejected that as well. Somehow ScienceDaily has not been reverted (may be yet) - and I believe it is now written in a neutral way.

Jytdog has said and I quote here: "phys.org, sciencedaily,etc ...that useless and pernicious".Redacted by volunteer.I suggest that an independent editor reviews these articles.

Redacted by volunteer

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third opinion was requested, but ignored by jytdog

How do you think we can help?

Re-write ScienceDaily and Phys.org in neutral non-biased style. Churnalism should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be the only information. Remove churnalism claim from Eureaklert section; it is false and it is not even supported by the references.

Summary of dispute by 83.54.140.34

• I've added myself to the Users involved. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note to moderator: This dispute is between jytdog and myself. The above mentioned users haven't contributed anything valuable to the discussion. Alexbrn have only reverted the page (without contributing anything to its content) for a plain "I don't agree" reason. The Quixotic Potato did the same for a made-up reason (I explained that on the Talk page). I suspect that both have simply acted on behalf of Jytdog, so that he could not be blamed for Edit Warring. PaleoNeonate have only once commented on my Wikipediocracy reference that blamed Jytdog and Alexbrn working in tandem. Mark Marathon provided a requested 3O who backed up my point, but was ignored. This was my reasoning for not including any of these editors into the dispute. If you believe I should still include them, please let me know. 83.54.140.34 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary: First of all, I apologize for the attack on the editors. These are my comments on the content. There are 3 almost identical edits (rev,rev,rev) of 3 articles referring to the same sources. If I'm obliged to tackle a lone article of phys.org in this dispute, so be it. However, in the context of the discussion, it is absolutely necessary to describe the other pages to address the "similarity" statement. My initial suggestion: make lead sentences according to WP:NPOV -- describe things the way independent reliable sources describe them, namely:

1. Eurekalert: nowhere in the secondary sources it is accused of churnalism or described as '... generating churnalism, similar to...'. Shipman describes it as press release distribution site and bulletin board for PRs, Angler as news service ... that organize news into categories. This is also supported by .
2. Science_Daily: Shipman doen't talk about churnalism on ScienceDaily. Angler describes it as press releases news service (page 44). There are sources that describe ScienceDaily as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism.
3. Phys.org - Shipman describes it as large news aggregator (page 24) and science news website ... that practice churnalism .... where much of content is directly from press releases (page 42). 'Much of content' is not all of the content, which requires further clarification. This ref describes it as summarizing science findings from peer-reviewed articles, and staff written stories are reported by Livescience, Sciencemag, space.com, CNN, IEEE Spectrum (1,2),The Guardian etc (3, 4, 5, 6). Again, there are sources that describe it as 'science news website' and sources that criticize it for masquerading as journalism..

My IP has changes, from now on I'll comment under new user name. Naesco (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question to moderator: is the dispute in progress already, so we can discuss the quality of each individual ref? I didn't do it in the summary of the dispute as I needed to keep it short. Otherwise, I can add it to the summary now. I just want to avoid cherry picking when some blogs are WP:RS and some are not. And shall I open separate disputes for other 2 articles or can we discuss it within this one, because the refs are the same?  Naesco (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary on refs: Ref [10] is written by Dr. Esther Ngumbi  who is an established science journalist with the proven track record  -- she wrote for  Los Angeles Times, Scientific American, NPR, SciDev etc. Not to mention that it is the most up-to-date ref (2017). So please no card stacking. I may agree that [8] might have a COI because they are a PR service. The same is valid for [5] and [9] -- according to WP:RS both refs have COI on 2 points out of 3 -- authors are paid by competitor websites, articles are published on the same websites (imagine a blog on Apple.com would criticize Microsoft). Ref [3] is clearly a WP:RS/SPS.

All in all, however, I am not suggesting to exclude any of these references, but instead strictly adhere to WP:NPOV guideline: ensure all majority and significant minority views ... are covered.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not want to revert back to my earlier edit, I agree that it was not properly sourced and SPS (WP:BITE). This is my suggestion for the lead sentence (in full accordance to WP:NPOV - describe things the way WP:RS describe them). It is practically a word by word quote from our most reliable and independent source [1]:

Phys.org is a British science, research and technology news website, that practices churnalism, where much of content is directly from press releases . It also publishes summaries on peer-reviewed articles on several science disciplines .

Can we agree on that? Naesco (talk)

• Question to the moderator: What are the exact criteria from WP:RS that ref. [7] does not meet? It is not clear from your comment, so I would like to clarify. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

The content is dispute is simple. The IP prefers the old version of the page (diff for Science Daily, diff at Phys.org), each of which was promotional and dominated by content sourced from these websites themselves and had unsourced content, and misrepresented what they actually do. Both lightly edit press releases and republish them and do not state clearly that what they publish are press releases. Our articles now state this clearly. As I have said before, if the IP wants to propose an independently sourced alternative I am more than open to hearing that. Such a proposal has not been forthcoming, since their first comment on this matter here: User_talk:Jytdog#Churnalism (I trust that the DR volunteers will remove comments that are not about the content itself in the OP) Jytdog (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out at the article talk page, ref #8 is on the website of a company that sells PR services to biotech companies. Of course it thinks phys.org is great. Not independent by miles and miles. With regard to ref #10, Esther Ngumbi 's blog posting in Scientific American, this person is not a science journalist, but rather is a post-doc at Auburn, and the piece is naive with regard to phys.org as well as other aspects of science communication. The sources I originally brought are by well established scientist journalists. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not OK with the second sentence of the proposed content. The source is weak. Fwiw I reached out to the author and asked her to read the refs in our article, and she said she regretted what she wrote but cannot change it. I realize that has zero value here. But I do not change my opposition to using a low quality ref to support a promotional claim.

With regard to the 1st sentence, I struggle, mightlily, with referrring to phys.org as a "news site". It is not legitimate science journalism -- it is just part of the science PR machine and is not transparent about what it is doing.

Folks have said that they feel that "churnalism" is jargony. I would accept something like "phys.org is a website that republishes press releases, sometimes lightly edited". Something like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

IP seems to want to downplay the well-sourced churnalistic nature of these sites and big up on self-sourced and/or unreliably-sourced content. Our articles should be based on decent secondary sources, so I disagree with those ambitions. I too wonder if there is a COI aspect to this. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phys.org#Edits today discussion

General comments

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

Note to volunteer: there are many more than two editors involved in this, at least: me, The Quixotic Potato, PaleoNeonate and Mark Marathon. Alexbrn (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is generally a good idea to comment on content, not the contributor. Maybe even more so for IPs who end up at WP:DRN because other people disagree with them. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for the invitation to comment. I agree that my role in this dispute was only to remind the IP address editor 83.54.140.34 of WP:TINC. I have rarely read Wikipediocracy threads but I remember that the few I read did not portray a rational view of the particular scenarios involved and appeared to be rants by people who have issues with Wikipedia. I don't think it can be used to justify aspersions. It may even be best for Wikipedians to not care about it, it's preferable to discuss Wikipedia matters using on-Wiki public talk pages, noticeboards and other Wikipedia processes like this one for scrutiny. I had no initial intention to debate the content here, but I could perhaps participate by commenting on the various sources presented, if I'm invited to do it. My experience with source evaluation in this field is however limited. —PaleoNeonate - 20:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I more or less agree with Jytdog et al. I am too lazy to explain how Wikipedia should work to Yet Another IP With A COI (YAIWACOI). I would like to point out that I am not a fan of publishing statistics about the amount of visitors of websites on Wikipedia articles because they are often incorrect and misleading. Anyone who uses Google Analytics knows that a statement like "Website X received Y visitors in year Z" isn't useful information; you'll need a lot of other numbers to provide context (e.g. how long did they stay?). Interpreting those numbers isn't as easy as it may seem. The constant stream of ad hominems gets boring fast. Jytdog has tried to explain the situation in detail on the talkpage. On the internet republishing content made by others is a profitable business model (go ask Ray William Johnson if you do not believe me). Has the IP declared a COI? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer/moderator comments

• Volunteer note - The filing party has not listed the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - This noticeboard isn't for a dispute between an editor and one other editor only; it is for disputes about the content of an article. If the filing party isn't interested in article content, only in the conduct of User:Jytdog, they are in the wrong place. Also, it isn't constructive to cast aspersions on the motives of other editors and say that they are acting on behalf of another editor or that they have made-up reasons. Is this really one unregistered editor against the world? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -
  • Aspersions/attacks on editors have been redacted.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @IP editor:-- Can you please summarise the points of content dispute sans any reference to any editor?(In the form of:-- 1)Whether source XXX constitutes a rel. source. 2)Whether the word YYY(supported by a, b, c) can be mentioned in lead....)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the summary (under new username). Naesco (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• • We are tackling a lone article here.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn and Mark Marathon: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Quixotic Potato and PaleoNeonate: Pinging you for your views on the issue(if any).Winged Blades ^Godric 17:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--Thanks to everybody for your valuable comments!Will be shortly commenting!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--I don't think LifeHacker,Howtogeek.com, blogs etc. to be constituting WP:RS and don't attach much value with other rel. sources referring to Phys.org as an evidence of it's non-churnalistic nature.Pinging Jytdog for his takes on Ref-8 and Ref-10.But the quality of the sources describing the site as churnalistic are superb!Am not commenting on websites rel. to other articles.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Yeah,you may post concise summary about the three sources I specifically opposed to, the two sources whose credibility were effectively questioned by Jytdog and about my second concern.No, first let's confine ourselves to this article only.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

responded with the second summary Naesco (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note--@Jytdog:--Thanks for your opinion!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note--@Naesco:--Thanks!
• Volunteer note--
  • WP:RS states:--Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications..So, I don't wholly concur on the treatment of [3].
  • References [6] and [7] are discounted as they fail the stringency required to be a WP:RS in this regard.
  • Reference [8] is discounted for having COI links.
  • Jytdog is asked to counter(if he chooses to) the point raised by Naesco in defence of [10] and Naesco's description of [3].
  • Reference [9] is a WP:RS by miles--written by credible journalists.
  • Jytdog is asked to look at whether the compromisatory solution seems viable.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Naesco:--Basically the source is some type of collective blog and I have strong doubts about credibility of the journalist.I will be double-vetting the reliability soon!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The site itself is a part of Gizmodo Media Group, owned by Univision Communications, a global media company. Alan Henry is a professional writer and editor. Last years he served as an editor-in-chief of Lifehacker. He is now a senior digital strategist at The New York Times. He wrote for Ziff Davis (Extreme Tech, Geek.com, PC Mag) and Purch ( Tom’s Guide) websites. He is by miles the most reputable expert of any others represented here. Thanks. Naesco (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Naesco:--Geesh! I replied that w.r.t to [6].Err....Winged Blades ^Godric 17:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, ref [6] is not really applicable per rules set in this dispute, as it only discusses ScienceDaily and not Phys.org. I'm not sure how this dispute is supposed to proceed: am I allowed to comment on the latest Jytdog's arguments or should I wait for the moderator?  Naesco (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Batman v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice#Plot_Summary

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Supermann on 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Plot Summary (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Supermann (talk · contribs) Bignole (talk · contribs) DonQuixote (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User: BIGNOLE said because the funeral held for Superman at Arlington National Cemetery is not directly mentioned by the film itself, like it was not in the lines uttered by some character or no on-screen caption, ecetera, then the funeral has no place in the Plot Summary. User: DonQuixote agreed as well thinking this is just fiction, why so serious. However, I think it's our duty to educate the readers if we have secondary source saying the funeral was held at Arlington. Whether it was physically filmed in Arlington is not the crux of the debate anymore. This detail is not irrelevant Have you tried to resolve this previously? exhausting discussion with the two editors.Redacted. How do you think we can help? allow me to add four little words "and Arlington National Cemetery" at the end of "A memorial is held for Superman in Metropolis" in the last paragraph of the plot summary. Summary of dispute by Supermann Reply to volunteer--So that's it? The involved sentences can't be modified into something like "Funerals/Memorials were held for Superman at Smallville, Arlington National Cemetery and Metropolis" (in that cinematic order)? I don't want to add my own synthesis as to why the director Zack Snyder didn't bother to identify Arlington. Could it have been that he, as an American, assumes audience or expects at least his fellow Americans to recognize the place without further ID? So when could we use IAR then? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Reply to volunteer--@Winged Blades of Godric:: Ben Kendrick, managing editor of Screenrant.com at http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-ending-explained-darkseid/, wrote, "the U.S army buries an empty black and silver casket (bearing a striking resemblance to the Man of Steel’s rebirth suit in “The Death of Superman”) in Arlington Cemetery." Apparently, he thinks it's important enough for him to point that out to readers. I don't know why everybody else has to be so stubborn in not allowing IAR for adding four little words. We have already exceeded the word limits for the plot summary. Four extra words won't offend the style guidelines that much. I am not stepping on predecessors to remove their contributions. I just can't get where the stubbornness comes from. The style guidelines specifically mentions exceptions are allowed. Pls let me know what other recourse I have for further appeal. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC) The so-called standing conventions come from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. At the very top of that page, it says, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So I am beseeching you when exactly do you plan to allow the exception? If I could find the reference for Arlington as a filmed location, I would have found it already. Putting Arlington into other sections is not the exception that I am seeking. That being said, I am still waiting for the Bluray arrival to check this out. You guys have made Wikipedia not the last sanctuary from a tough economic environment for journalists. I strongly believe that back in the old days, there would have been plenty of citations for the filming locations on Arlington. But right now we just don't have enough people to write about that, leaving me with no choice other than begging you guys to put it in the plot summary. Supermann (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @DonQuixote:: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." @DonQuixote:: That quote is straight from the consensus policy you cited. Ctrl/Command+F to find it. I am not lying. @DonQuixote:: The spirit of that quote hasn't been reflected in this resolution process.Supermann (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @DonQuixote:: Then you are violating that quote again. @Winged Blades of Godric: You really have to give me a specific case/example on that scenario you had just introduced. I have become quite dis-heartened at this point. Thanks to you guys! Supermann (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: So @GoldenRing: did become an admin. Congrats. I like his answer on Q5. My paraphrase: don't let all the other rules make this place too authoritarian. Kudos to @Kudpung: on IAR, too. As for my "personal attacks", I apologize for them to be interpreted as attacks. I was just trying to understand their background and why they thought like a stubborn lawyer. I hope movies could unite us instead of dividing us. In my eyes, Superman should be a uniting figure. I am an immigrant, not white. Yet I totally bought into the message from Superman, who is technically a white illegal immigrant. There are definitely stuff in the plot summary right now that could be trimmed and made room for Arlington. But I guess we reached a point where no concession could be made for just four little words. If I could find citation to back Arlington in a different section, I would do it and seek so-called consensus. But if the other editors just can't compromise on adding those four words in plot summary, Let's agree to disagree.Supermann (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by BIGNOLE Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Film plots are written based on what happens in the film. We don't include information that is not directly stated, no matter if we know better. For example, we know that Harvey Dent is actually Two-Face in The Dark Knight, but we don't call him that because the film doesn't call him there. In this case, the film never says where Superman is buried, even if keen observers know what Arlington Cemetery looks like. In addition, the location is irrelevant to the overall summary of the plot. We're trying to keep minute details out, and focus on overall story. Supermannn appears to think that somehow we are doing a disservice to the actual Arlington Cemetery and the United States by not explicitly pointing out where he was buried (ignoring the fact that the film itself doesn't even point it out).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC) The same that I thought before, it's a reviewer who says this. It isn't stated in the film that that is where he is buried, nor is there any indication other than someone saying "I know what Arlington Cemetary looks like". The problem with using this is that it's synthesis for one, because we know that filmmakers use real locations in the place of fictional films. A museum in Michigan was used for the scenes where Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot interact, but we aren't to assume they are actually in Michigan. The fact that we have to go through such lengths to identify a specific location in which a fictional character was buried and shown for a grand total of like 20 seconds, should be enough to show that the element is trivial at best. It appears that Supermannn only wants to include it because of the significance of the cemetery in real life. Given that the plot section is already over word count, I would still be against specifically identifying 1 specific cemetery (we don't specifically call out Smallville town cemetery) that is never identified in the film, simply because it has real life significance and a reviewer mentions it by name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DonQuixote Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The primary source doesn't mention Arlington Cemetery, so it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the plot summary which is implicitly citing the primary source. Also user:Supermann has tried to insert the claim that the scene was filmed in Arlington Cemetery by citing a source that doesn't say anything like that. Finding a source that actually says this should be acceptable and can be included in other, more appropriate, sections of the article. DonQuixote (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Ditto(of Bignole). Movies sometimes use footage of real places to represent fictional places. Unless the primary sources make their intentions clear, it shouldn't be automatically assumed to be the real place. Also, if a source says something like "filmed at ANC", then we can cite that and put it in a footnote or in the Production section. DonQuixote (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann: So I am beseeching you when exactly do you plan to allow the exception? A good rule of thumb is when there's more than one person requesting it. That is, when you form a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann: Er...I don't know what you're responding to, because I never said anything like what you wrote.... DonQuixote (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann: Yes, I know you were quoting it, but why? I haven't said anything of the things that that quote relates to.... DonQuixote (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann: Everyone else made arguments, based on policy, that the current edit is fine as-is. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. One person doesn't make a consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Talk:Batman v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice#Plot_Summary 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment'-- @Supermann:--Keeping your own views/research/synthesis away for a while; can you point to some critical reviews in relibale sources that attach the funeral scenes with ANC and lends a non-trivial importance?Winged Blades Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Much of the good things that are usually uttered at DRN have been already told to you at the talk page.Winged Blades Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC) And comment on content, not on traits of contributors.Winged Blades Godric 18:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann:-- I take the liberty to assume, from your reply, that you have failed to find any RS supporting either that it was filmed in ANC or that the funeral in ANC had any importance.Also, neither does the film points out the name--ANC ever in it's entire run-time.In such circumstances, my best advice for you would be to leave the hopes of inserting ANC in the article.Winged Blades Godric 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Also, ignoring all rules seems to occupy the center-stage of most of your arguments.I would thus advice you to go through this essential corollary.Winged Blades Godric 09:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Bignole and DonQuixote:--What do you think about the quality/reliabilty of the afore-mentioned source?Winged Blades Godric 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC) @Bignole and DonQuixote:--Thanks for your opinions!Winged Blades Godric 08:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Supermann:-- Per standing conventions the Plot Section houses only such details of the story-line which may be easily verified by a world-wide audience upon viewing the film, without any specialist knowledge.This is violated when ANC is inserted.I have watched the film prev. and I hardly knew about the location!To give you something of an analogy there are websites dedicated to discover importance cum significance of the trivialest of trivial scenes in GOT, Harry-potter movies et al.That hardly means all those synthesises get inserted into the concerned en.wiki articles. In many film(s), there is an interpretation section but that is used chiefly when a lot of critical reviews etc. have commented on a specific scene/the ending/the message and have derived their own meanings!--thus guaranteeing the notability and non-triviality of the matter.I fail to see any such importance being accorded to the case in our hand. Obviously, your best bet in inserting the info in some form is to find a source that states The film( or more specifically these scenes) was/were shot at ANC. Volunteer comment:--IAR and the phrase:--exceptions apply--hardly trump consensus.These were mainly added to avoid something of a situation like where a local group of five/six editors determined that an edit improves the quality of an article but goes against some or the other policy but a seventh person appeared and reverted the edits only because it violated a policy.That's not the case here! As to your other concerns, I'm but undone!And we're not some royal folks to be begged to! Never get dis-heartened!Winged Blades Godric 17:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment:--Everybody, please stop the back-and-forth.Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment:--It may be prudential for Supermann to kindly read about beating a dead horse and why I don't get it style of arguments are discouraged. Further, WP is not a very good place for lawyers to try their business and it will be beneficial for you and the community in large if you shift your arguments from the IAR axis and cease to believe that you are our sole patriotic American with common-sense. We can take great efforts to make sure a community member understands our policies but we all have limited good faith attitude and it's not very prudential for anyone to tread on the border-line.Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment:--Talking about application of WP:IAR see Kudpung's vote at this RfA but that did not meant that he had the entire chance to be correct and as it turned out--it was a close call--which favored him!Winged Blades Godric 08:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment:--Thanks for your understanding!If you could find a citation to insert Arlington in a different section, go for it! 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:Raven's Home#Cory in the House

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 97.127.112.18 on 06:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Amaury (talk · contribs)
• Callmemirela (talk · contribs)
• MPFitz1968 (talk · contribs)
• Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs)
• IJBall (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over whether or not the TV show "Cory in the House" should be listed in the "preceded by" box on the TV show "Raven's Home"'s page. The show "Raven's Home" is the second spin-off another show called "That's So Raven", and as such I added "Cory in the House" in the preceded box because they are all in the same show universe, and "Raven's Home" comes after "Cory in the House" chronologically. One user keeps removing it, yet has seems to have no interest in having an actual conversation about it's conclusion. They have been dismissive of my point of view, they have given conflicting statements on website rules to match their point of view, and have told me that a consensus needs to be reached, even though one has not. There have been other users who have weighed in, but overall their has not been a consensus for whether or not to list the show in the preceded by box. The user was the one who told me consensus is needed, yet their last message, was "'Kay. Whatever helps you feel better. If you refuse to let this go, I think it will just be better if we all just ignore you and not make any further responses to you.". That is not helping to reach one.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have not currently taken other steps because the user has been dismissive of having further conversation.

How do you think we can help?

Involvement from more parties, probably Wikipedia staff, would be helpful to this issue as the user involved clearly has no interest in talking about the issue. There last message flat out said they would ignore further comments from me. That is not reaching a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Amaury

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

Summary of dispute by Callmemirela

This dispute involves more than one party. To summarize this, the IP argues that Cory in the House should be included in the preceded by of the infobox of Raven's Home. CITH (mind the abbreviation, it's long) was a spin-off show of That's So Raven and occurred after the original show's airing. Raven's Home occurred after the airing of CITH. However, the dispute is about whether Raven's Home is preceded by CITH. Raven's Home does not proceed after CITH. It proceeds the original show. The show's star, Raven-Symoné, even said herself it was "That's So Raven 2" back when she announced the sequel. CITH has nothing to do with this show. I tried asking the IP let it go as more than one user has said that CITH does not proceed the sequel show. But here we are. PS: The IP did not inform the user above. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House discussion

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

• I concur with Callmemirela's summary here. There are multiple people, myself included, that oppose listing any relationship to Cory in the House, which is an independent spinoff of That's So Raven, and which has absolutely no relationship to the Raven's Home TV series. Also, please see this discussion: Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House – to say that it "hasn't been discussed" is inaccurate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Part of the problem is the interpretation of the "preceded_by" attribute in Template:Infobox television, which I brought up in the article's talk page discussion. The first part of the instructions for that state: If Show A was a predecessor of Show B, insert the name of Show A and production years. (Name in italics (linked if possible) followed by year-to-year in parentheses, e.g. That Ol' Show (1956–1957).) Very little to go on, and it can be left open to mean how the filer of this dispute is interpreting it, as being part of the franchise that started with That's So Raven. But I side with Callmemirela and IJBall on not including Cory in the House. That and Raven's Home do spin off from That's So Raven, but they don't share the same branch of a tree (analogy not my wording, and apologies to whoever I'm borrowing this from, but analogy fits well in this case). MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with all the above as well. I'll say this, as IJBall mentioned, discussion did take place and consensus was that it shouldn't be included, and now this IP is unhappy that it didn't go their way and came here to try to cause trouble. Contrary to their claim, I am perfectly happy to discuss issues and wasn't dismissive from the get-go. I was only dismissive—or however you want to phrase it—once it was clear that they weren't going to drop the stick and move on; instead, they just kept going around in pointless circles. Consensus was against them and they refused to accept it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• It has nothing to do with me being unhappy or upset, and I'm not hear to cause trouble. I'm trying to have a conversation and you are being completely rude. It's your attitude throughout the whole process, and based on what others have said, it doesn't look like CLEAR consensus. There are people who said they had reservations on the issue, but didn't really care about whether or not to include it or not. Only two users have expressed clear opposition on the talk page, while I wanted it included, another did not care either way, and yet another did not give a defineite yes or not. That is not consensus. Not to mention, one user said one thing about the rules in this matter, and then you came in and changed what you thought they were to fit your narrative. That is my main problem, the clarity of the situation. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens discussion. There has been discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator: Hello, I am Kostas20142, the moderator of this discussion. Will each editor please describe in one paragraph what do they believe that the issues are, after reading these rules  ? --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure why this is necessary, as this was discussed above, but here goes: the Disney Channel series That's So Raven (2003–2007), which starred Raven-Symoné as Raven, has now spawned two subsequent spinoff series: Cory in the House (2007–2008), which focused on Raven's brother and father, and Raven's Home (2017) which is more of a "sequel" than a spinoff, and which again focuses on Raven, and her best friend from That's So Raven, and their now-children. The specific issue in this case concerns whether the Preceded by parameter in the infobox at Raven's Home should include just That's So Raven, or That's So Raven AND Cory in the House. As Cory in the House is viewed as a spinoff that is "independent" of Raven's Home (as it does not concern the character of Raven at all), the consensus seems to be that Preceded by in the infobox should only include That's So Raven. Previous discussion can be found at Talk:Raven's Home#Cory in the House. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the above. If the IP's claims about this not having to do with the consensus at the aforementioned discussion by IJBall is true, then this should have never been filed to begin with as it was already resolved on the article's talk page. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I, the filer of this dispute, do not agree that there has been a clear consensus reached. Up until I put this discussion here, they had be only one user on each side of the argument, me for the inclusion of the disputed item, and Amaury against it. While other users did come to the discussion, they did not provide definite answers or sides to the argument. IJall came in with his opinion and as far as they were considered, 2 vs 1 was automatically a consensus reached and I was told to get over it. However, my problem is still not solved in my mindset. Other users have made it clear that there is no definite rule for the "Preceded by" box on tv shows, and if there is no definite rule, there is no reason not to list "Cory in the House" in the template as all three shows fall within the same TV show universe, in my personal opinion. That is why I have asked for moderation in this debate. I am fully willing to accept the outcome even if it is not in my favor, but I do not appreciate told to get over it and "I think it will just be better if we all just ignore you and not make any further responses to you." That is no constructive to editing on this site. --97.127.112.18 (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator: Looking at the template documentation page, I also found a field named related for related shows, such as spinoffs. Would both parties be satisfied if we included only That's So Raven in Preceded by and added Cory in the House in related ?? --Kostas20142 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we're aware of that parameter. The thing is, it doesn't matter what the parameter that we use is, Cory in the House has no relation whatsoever to Raven's Home. They are completely unrelated. That's So Raven and Cory in the House are related and That's So Raven and Raven's Home are related, but Cory in the House and Raven's Home have nothing to do with each other and have no relation at all. Raven's Home doesn't even have any starring cast from Cory in the House which further proves the point, but it does have two starring cast from That's So Raven. Also, the IP's claims that IJBall and myself were the only people opposed to including Cory in the House on the article's talk page are outright wrong. Callmemirela was also clearly opposed to including Cory in the House, so that's three-to-one. MPFitz1968 originally wasn't sure, but later opposed above, so that's four-to-one. Geraldo Perez is kind of our wild card as he's half opposed to it in that it didn't matter to him quite as much either way, but he did lean toward not including it. If you want to look at it this way, that's four and a half-to-one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I concur with Amaury – switching to the Related parameter just side-steps the issue, and I agree with Amaury in that Cory in the House isn't really even "related" to Raven's Home. As I said above, they are both spinoffs of That's So Raven, but are essentially independent spinoffs of each other. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

third statement by moderator Valid arguments supporting that the shows are not related have been presented. @97.127.112.18:, do you have anything that can support the opposite? Also, would any other parties like to propose a solution to the issue?--Kostas20142 (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: I have assessed the discussion in talk page and I actually ser a consensus (I would like to remind to everyone though that it doesn't have to do with numbers). This means that including the show in preceded by is not a valid solution. It can only be done if a new consensus is reached. This would ideally need an RfC, but the chances of success are low. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peacock Alley_(restaurant)

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Marrakech on 21:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Peacock Alley (restaurant) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marrakech (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a number of articles on Dutch and Irish restaurants user The Banner has included the phrase "X is a defunct restaurant located in ..." While a majority of users has argued against that particular phrasing, nobody has so far objected to "X was a restaurant located in ...", which I think sounds more natural and logical. (If only because past and present seem to clash in "X is a defunct restaurant located in ..." - how can a restaurant that has ceased to exist still be located somewhere?) However, when I introduce the broadly supported 'was a restaurant' wording in one of 'his' restaurant articles, The Banner has a tendency to change it back to its previous state, thereby ignoring the outcome of the discussion. See for example the article The Oriel (and the discussion I started on its talk page).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/language, which has been copied to the talk page of the article Peacock Alley (restaurant).

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can persuade The Banner to accept this change to a dozen or so of his articles.

Summary of dispute by The Banner

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

Marrakech is forumhopping and following me around. He is very flexible in his arguments to shape articles to his personal taste. The Banner talk 21:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peacock Alley_(restaurant) 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. Is this dispute about one article, or about multiple articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • For clarity's sake the discussion focused on one article, but other restaurant articles include the same phrase(s). In fact, immediately after I filed this request to resolve the dispute, The Banner changed "was a restaurant located in" into the contentious "is a defunct restaurant located in" in numerous articles (see his contributions list and one example of these changes). Marrakech (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Conduct allegation. Do not make conduct allegations at this noticeboard. We do not engage in moderated discussion while there are conduct allegations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It is part of an ongoing harassing campaign that started on the Dutch Wikipedia and now is exported to ENWP. The Banner talk 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Is User:The Banner interested in moderated discussion, or are they declining to take part in discussion because they believe that the other editor is following them and is forumhopping or forumshopping? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer response Hi, I am KDS4444 and I am here to make an attempt to resolve this dispute. The last time I tried this it blew up like a pipe bomb in my face, and I am hesitant to even take a shotat this one, but what the hell— the issue seems fairly innocuous. First, I should disclose that I am already familiar with The Banner from other places on Wikipedia, and have high respect for his sense of judgement generally— I am not going to recuse myself at this point, but I felt I should make that clear before I begin. Now, with regard to the issue at hand, I'd like to hear The Banner respond to the comments regarding phrasing of "defunct" vs. "was" rather than pointing out that the other editor is forum hopping (which may be true, of course, but isn't really my concern). Banner: ad hominem feelings and behaviors aside, what are your thoughts about the phrasing "was a restaurant" vs. "is a defunct a restaurant"? You have felt strongly enough about it to revert Marrakech's attempt to rephrase it, and I must admit that at first glance (which is all I am giving right now) the phrasing "was a restaurant" does seem more direct and to the point (esp. with regard to present vs. past tense— a defunct restaurant seems like it warrants a "was" more than an "is"). I understand that this is all a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but language matters and I don't know of any existing policy one way or the other on something like this (though if either of you do, I'd be glad to hear it). Banner, can you offer some thoughts with regard to your desire to have the "defunct" phrasing? I am curious as much as anything. We don't WP:OWN these articles, of course, and sometimes other editors come up with better ways of saying things which they are then entitled to include— unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, yes? Please expound. Thanks! And pleas, no pipe bombs. Much appreciated. KDS4444 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have already stated that Marrakech is very flexible is his arguments to enforce his personal taste. The discussion on Peacock Alley started around the phrase "is former restaurant" what I changed in "a defunct restaurant". Although prior discussion showed that that phrase was correct, Marrakech still kept changing it. He seems to read "restaurant" solely as a location, never as a company that can become defunct due to bankruptcy or any other reason. His last attempt was to change "a defunct restaurant located in" with the argument that a restaurant can not be defunct and located somewhere. So I started removing "located" out of my articles. I have made a lot of changes to suit his taste and following prior discussion, so I am not unwilling. The Banner talk 09:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• @The Banner: - What you wrote above is difficult to follow. I am going to have to ask you to rephrase it so that I can understand better what it is you are saying. I think Marrakech understands that a restaurant is both a location as well as a business entity, just as I do and as you do. Business entities can become defunct, can change locations, and can disappear entirely. The phrasing, "...was a restaurant..." covers disappearance both in the physical sense as well as the business sense. Does that not make it the better choice of words here? KDS4444 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. In the case of Peacock Alley the location is part of a hotel. They forced Peacock Alley to close down (long story, court cases etc.) After Conrad Gallagher was gone, they brought in Kevin Thorthon with his Thornton's Restaurant. Effectively, it was only the company that disappeared. The building is still there. In contrast, you have Thermidor (restaurant). After reviewing the article I have changed that article to "was a restaurant" as both company and building are gone. The Banner talk 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• That make sense to me now. If Marrakech agrees, we can consider this case closed. KDS4444 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• To be honest, KDS4444, it doesn't make sense to me at all. I fail to see why 'Peacock Alley was a restaurant' would not continue to be the better choice of words. How is it relevant that the building is still there and another restaurant moved in? That has no bearing on the fact that Peacock Alley doesn't exist anymore, which is the only thing that matters in this respect and why the 'was a restaurant' solution is perfectly fine. Suppose a year ago on Melrose Avenue a bar called Macy's closed down, after which another bar was opened at the same location — does that mean that the wording 'Macy's is a defunct bar on Melrose Avenue' would be preferable to' Macy's was a bar on Melrose Avenue'? I really don't think so, and still find the 'X is a defunct restaurant in such and such location' phrasing bizarrely awkward. Marrakech (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

International Anti-Corruption Academy

– New discussion.

Filed by Richard.eames on 18:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• International Anti-Corruption Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Richard.eames (talk · contribs)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs)
• HeadOverHeels (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi – I’ve been involved in a talk page discussion/dispute with user Jytdog regarding "independent" sourcing of content about the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA). Can the Wikipedia community help to clarify?

First of all, let me declare my COI in connection with this page – I’m the Senior Coordinator for Advocacy and Communications at IACA and have previously made direct edits to this page in my own name. I stopped doing this owing to my COI and instead proposed content on the talk page. I fully understand that a Wikipedia page is not the IACA website and I want to play a part in helping to improve it, but I’m struggling to understand what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source.

The content I proposed is basic facts about the organization that are of public interest. All the references I used were external and supported all the proposed content. In reply, Jytdog says the following sources are not independent:

1] A press release from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), because UNODC was one of the agencies that formed IACA. However, the current page about IACA includes a press release from the UK government, which also played a role in IACA’s formation. Why is one press release independent and the other not?

2] The IACA Agreement, the organization’s founding treaty, because it’s a "primary source". Is it Wikipedia policy not to allow any primary sources as references?

3] The IACA website. But the Wikipedia pages of many other international organizations that operate in similar areas to IACA - such as UNODC and Interpol - have multiple references to their respective websites. Why the inconsistency?

I’d be grateful for any comments/clarifications here that will help build content and create a more useful page.

Thanks and best wishes, Richard

• Reply to moderator:--Thanks for your note, Winged Blades. Regarding your request about which content is being cited by each source:

On the talk page I proposed the following wording to go at the start of the article:

The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders.

IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization.

IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.

In reply, Jytdog said the first source (Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy) doesn't mention IACA. It is an index page. So here is another link on the same Ministry website that goes direct to the Ministry letter confirming that IACA is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution: https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf

Jytdog said the second source (UNODC) is a press release by one of the agencies that formed the academy. This is not independent. - Winged Blades, I see you don't have strong objections to this

Jytdog said the third source - the IACA Agreement or treaty - is what we call a "primary source" and not independent.

Look forward to hearing from you, Winged Blades - many thanks. Richard.eames (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Just talk page discussion with Jytdog

How do you think we can help?

By providing more clarification as to what Wikipedia regards as an “independent” source.

Summary of dispute by Jytdog

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

This article has been under a ton of promotional pressure. The OP is continuing that, and wants us to source the WP article to the website of the organization he works for (which he writes) and to use a bunch of primary sources to describe the mission of this organization, which may or may not have anything to do with what it actually does and how well it does it.

He is giving the "other stuff exists" argument, which is not compelling. I have explained that Wikipedia is full of poor content, and instead of understanding that, he is continuing with the "why the inconsistency" argument.

I have requested independent sources several times, and that request has been steadfastly ignored. This is rather surprising, as I would expect the PR rep to be able to easily cite independent reporting on his organization. But I would be very happy to flesh out the article, based on independent, secondary sources that are reliable.

The sources at hand are also confusing with regard to the "founding" date. Claims have been made in various places, including by each of the other accounts, that 2011 is the "correct" date but what that means is unclear. This organization appears to have been founded at three times in seemingly different ways (initially under a first treaty, later becoming operational, and later yet as some sort of formal "international organization".) I have asked for sources explaining this, and this too has been ignored.

The third account mentioned here, very oddly appeared and started making the same arguments that the OP has made, arguing for the exact same language and sourcing. Hm.

There is really no valid dispute here - the way forward is clear but instead of following the path laid out, the two accounts are arguing for content that promotes the school based on sources that say little about what actually has happened. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The budget was mentioned below, as something that should be citable to the organization's website. Well, this is part of the problem here. I have been debating whether to add further content to the article from the independent sources we have, but now have done so, in this diff, namely :

The News reported that the IACA posted a budget of 12.98 million euros for the 2014 financial year and a budget of 13.24 million euros for 2015; the reporter noted that the actual revenues for 2013 were 2.3 million euros and expenditures were around 2.1 million euros. The reporter asked the IACA about the six-fold increase in budget and was told that these were projected figures, expressing a fund-raising goal.

The News also reported that although the IACA had fifty member states as of early 2016, less than 20 had contributed any funds and of those, six had contributed less than 10,000 and another five had contributed between 10,000 and 30,000 euros. Austria had contributed around 3.2 million euros in total to IARC by 2015.

References

These are the kinds of issues we are dealing with here. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've further amended the article to fit what independent sources say - the lead as well as the body. Please do see this diff. The promotional pressure here is unsurprising based on what independent refs say, and as i have noted before, somewhat ironic, given the putative mission. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HeadOverHeels

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

There seems to have been plenty of useful data and facts about IACA in this article until recently, where some editing conflicts seem to have taken place. It would appear that a content campaign has been fought. The current text of this article has been shrunk by an admin to three paragraphs, based on this admin's interpretation of pre-existing data in the article. This led to an article which is clearly against WP:NPOV, which contains typos, wrong data (founding year), and stating controversial facts which are partially unsupported by the reference sources. Flawed sources are in German. Although not against editing policies it makes it impossible for most readers to understand the missing support of these claims. Here they are: "unclear" unusual staff turnover stated as fact, although the source article in NEWS refers to hear-say only, moreover the referred press article makes clear that an official explanation had been provided by the organization, so it's not unclear, reference to a "revolving door" is not supported by the cited NEWS article.

Non-necessary information.And Jytdog ain't an admin.Winged Blades Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Whenever an editor, with or without COI, tried to contribute to a better article, the admin, who set it up, rejects facts and data, refers to various WP policies, but does not respond to the question under dispute. Even clear typos or wrong references are not removed or rectified after multiple explanations by editors. Impression is that because admin is the author of the current three paragraphs, there seems no honest will by admin to change. There is furthermore no common understanding on the requirement of sources. International organizations, with the blessing of Wikipedia (UN_WIKIMEDIA Cooperation) are referring to their founding year, number of staff, public projects, budget, ect. without anyone requiring external sources. Because that's where the information is available. With IACA that's rejected. Even sources from other IOs who were involved with IACA, such as the UN, are not accepted. International law is ignored as primary source, although statutary law is the most authentic source available. That's currently out of balance and admin seems to prevent any progress.HeadOverHeels (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

To make this article useful there has to be space for data, facts, and also for controversy. Grateful for any help we can get on this HeadOverHeels (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:International Anti-Corruption_Academy#IACA_page 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, and the other parties have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Welcome to DRN.I will be the moderator!Winged Blades ^Godric 08:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note -I will request Richard.eames to kindly mention the exact locus of the dispute.It may be on the lines of:--

  I proposed XYZ.....as the wording but Jytdog reverted it to ABC..... on the following grounds:-1).....2).....3).....

It's very difficult to answer to general queries.

• Volunteer note---As to the queries by Richard; here goes the replies:--
  • Assuming that it is this source and was intended for use in your proposed lead at the talk-page, I don't have any strong objections.
  • No comments.I was unable to determine the exact area of usage for the source.But in general, primary sources can be used in a limited number of situations.
  • Generally, it's seldom allowed.But again, usage-area matters.

Thus, it would be prudential to exactly specify the content that is being cited by each of the source.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note---@HeadOverHeels:-- Your massive-reversion was outright-problematic.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Moderator:--Thanks for helping out! Sorry! Acknowledge wrongdoing! Was new to WP and copied previous style of editing at this article. Will not repeat for the sake of a useful result. Thanks again! HeadOverHeels (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note---I have problems with the contents of the lead and the language used but I don't have any massive problems with the sources.
• Volunteer note---@Jytdog:--Can you please sketch the lead desired by you?Or is it the current-standing version?Winged Blades ^Godric 13:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Moderator: @Jytdog has deleted the content in the lead about IACA being an international organization. But this is a fact under international law, i.e. IACA's founding treaty - and I understand from @WingedBlades that this primary source is OK to cite.

Secondly, @Jytdog added the statement that "IACA has been asked by one of its major donors, Siemens, as well as by reporters to published audited financial statements". But the Correctiv article that Jytdog cites doesn't say that Siemens has asked us to publish audited financial statements. This content is not supported by the source - please remove the reference to Siemens here.

Assuming the current lead is Jytdog's preferred version, and if @Winged Blades has no big problems with the sources I previously cited, please could the moderator suggest a way forward? Thanks, Richard.eames (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear all, I will be on vacation for the next 2 weeks and won't check in here. My colleague Adrian Ciupagea will step in for me, using his own name. He's also in IACA's communications team, so let me declare his COI here (he will do the same as and when he contributes). Hope we can continue this civil discussion and improve the page. Best,Richard.eames (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades: Thanks for your volunteer-efforts. Here are sources external to IACA which could serve as references in a lead. They provide data and facts, such as IACA’s legal status (international organization, institution of postsecondary education, and some more facts).

Australian Parliament: debate and approval to ratify the IACA Agreement (International Organization):

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/23august2011/report/chapter2

Austrian Government, Certificate that IACA is an international organization and institution of post-secondary education:

https://wissenschaft.bmwfw.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Kasparovsky/EMpfehlungen/2.1.4.15a_E_BF.pdf

Austrian Government-Legal Information System (depositary of the IACA Agreement) International Agreement (Treaty) on the Establishment of IACA as international organization:

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2011_III_22/COO_2026_100_2_653036.pdf

Many more links external to IACA are out there on the web.

However, my question remains why, as Jytdog explained, statutary (international) law founding an organization is an unacceptable primary source to document this organization, its mandate and function, its financing, its governance. All is herein and for international organizations, their constitution (Int. Treaty) is the most authentic if not only source to learn who they are. It's just as writing an article about a state and not looking into its constitution or legal system. Also facts, such as the number of inhabitants, size of territory, geographical particularities are normally provided by the states, who else should know these data. Why should that not be permitted to establish an informative lead about IACA, by using data from their website and from their constitution before getting into substance matters and controversial content?

With my first „ambitious“ editing attack (apologies again), I presented a very concise proposal for a lead which was immediately reverted. I do not have a problems by using any other, more extensive language such as the Richard Eames proposal from the talk page, and sourced with the IACA Agrement and the IACA Website. That is applied standard on WP for international organizations and I simply don't read it as being against WP policies on primary sources:

Original Proposal for a lead by Richard Eames was:

„The International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) is an international organization and post-secondary educational institution based in Laxenburg (Vienna), Austria. It was initiated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders. IACA became an international organization on 8 March 2011 on the basis of a multilateral treaty – the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy as an International Organization. IACA’s mandate, stipulated in Article II of this agreement, is “to promote effective and efficient prevention and combating of corruption” through education and professional training, research, technical assistance, and international cooperation and networking.“

Your opinion and advice would be really welcome. Thanks! HeadOverHeels (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)