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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	18 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 4 hours
Norse Deity pages	In Progress	Dots321 (t)	11 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 9 hours	VeryRarelyStable (t)	1 days,
List of South Korean girl groups	Closed	98Tigerius (t)	10 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	In Progress	Banedon (t)	10 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 10 hours	LokiTheLiar (t)	1 days,
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	9 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 days, 4 hours
Kylie Minogue	Closed	PHShanghai (t)	7 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	11 hours
African diaspora	Closed	Kyogul (t)	4 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 17:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead

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 JPark99 on 22:48, 9 October 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:Toronto#Changes to the First Paragraph of the Lead (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JPark99 (talk · contribs) Saboteurest (talk · contribs) Alaney2k (talk · contribs) Johnny Au (talk · contribs) Hwy43 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute over proposed changes to the lead section of the Toronto article. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Attempted a discussion on the talk page, also requested a third opinion and was directed here. How do you think we can help? Provide an outside, neutral opinion. Summary of dispute by Saboteurest My main concerns with the lead is that the language has an advertising/puffery tone and the references do not back-up the claims in the lead. I tried to tone it down to be more neutral sounding. Here are just a few examples: Most populous - This term is used three time in the first paragraph. I tried to combine this into one usage. Heavily urbanized region - Heavily urbanized to whom? Much of it looks like what most Asian countries would call the countryside. It contains some of the country's most prosperous farming land. Heavily urbanized is a big stretch. Not referenced An international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture - Toronto is no doubt a Canadian business centre, but International centre? It is also unreferenced. Toronto is sometimes mocked for being completely void of arts and culture, now the article is claiming it's an international centre of arts and culture. Again, not referenced. Recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan - Recognized by whom? Toronto is undeniably multicultural but the reference provided does not say it is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Not referenced. Toronto is known for its many skyscrapers and high-rise buildings - Known by whom? Dubai and New York are known for their skyscrapers. The reference speaks about construction of condo buildings and how the future skyline could potentially appear. Nothing about Toronto being known for its skyscrapers. Not referenced 140 independently unique and clearly defined official neighbourhoods - Toronto's neighbourhoods aren't overly unique and most blend into each other seamlessly as the reference discusses. Again, statement not referenced. A prominent centre - Prominent? More puffery. Not referenced. In fact the entire last paragraph is poorly written. Most major cities are home to diverse economies. Most of that paragraph is not lead worthy and much of the facts belong in their respective sections. The Golden Horseshoe is an arbitrary area used by the province with many independent cities and towns which includes Toronto. I'm not sure the lead is the place to introduce this area that includes many other cities that have no connection to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saboteurest (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Also by international standards Toronto's housing is still quite affordable. According to the Telegraph it ranks 20th worldwide. Hardly lead noteworthy. But definitely worth a mention in the article somewhere. I would vote against adding this in the lead. Saboteurest (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alaney2k Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My concern is mostly that the quality of the text could be improved. I think that, mainly, having the most-populous text, etc., the positive text is normal for an article of this type. I think that it is important to be objective too and the text comes across as self-important. As someone who has visited most of Canada, lived elsewhere in Canada, I do agree that Toronto by itself is the most important city in Canada in many fields, and in some ways, (like English TV) dominates Canada, but it's not by a "country mile". Mostly, it is a fast-growing, prosperous city. It has problems - homelessness, poverty, income disparity, automobile traffic, public transit gap and I would like to see those reflected in the lead. There's a bit too much about ranking. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Johnny Au Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Though I'm a major contributor to the article, I am seeking consensus. I am not asking much. That is all. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead 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. I have added an editor. The filing party should notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - I have added an editor and notified non-filing participants of discussion. Nihlus 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Saboteurest has not edited in over a week. If they do not respond to messages soon, we will move on. @JPark99, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: Do you feel this DR is necessary in light of Saboteurest's inactivity? If so, we can continue it; otherwise, I will close it. Feel free to respond below this message. Nihlus 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I would like Saboteurest to have the chance to have their say. I agree fully with Alaney2k's comments in this discussion, and agree with the changes proposed. I'd like to add that the extremely high housing prices in Toronto could be reflected in the lead along with other problems the city faces, as it has created a major housing crisis. My disagreements with Saboteurest have been primarily about the removal of statistics and other data about the city, and language used to describe the city. I think it would be beneficial to keep this discussion open for one more week, to give everyone a chance to comment. JPark99 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC) I agree with extending the discussion by a week to be fair. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Although, not customary, I will keep this thread open for the next seven days to allow Saboteurest a chance to respond per the agreement of participants. The case will be on hold until then. Nihlus 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: I will act as the moderator in this discussion. A reminder to those involved that we all have the goal of improving the article. Please familiarize yourself with my rules; your involvement in this discussion implies your agreement to follow them. The two competing lead sentences are as follows: Version 1 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ , locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ) is the most populous city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world. Version 2 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ , locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ) is a Canadian city and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a city population of 2,731,571 and a metropolitan population of 5,928,040, it is the most populous city and metropolitan area in Canada. A global city, Toronto is a centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural cities in the world. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, which version they prefer and why and, if applicable, how it aligns with the guideline WP:LEAD? As a reminder, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Nihlus 01:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC) @Alaney2k and Johnny Au: I'm still waiting for your comments on this. Nihlus 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC) @Johnny Au: The consensus will be formed by the participants in this discussion. Waiting to decide after the DRN process is complete is not helpful and will only get this closed as premature. Nihlus 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Nihlus: I made my decision. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors Version 2. It is clear, concise, and cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows as per the guidelines as version 1 does. Saboteurest (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I prefer version 1. It provides an outline of the article with basic facts, it establishes context, and it explains the notability of the topic in summarizing the major points of the article. The first sentence clearly identifies the topic of the article, in that it is about Canada's most populous city which is also the capital city of Ontario. The second sentence provides context to the city's population as it identifies the exact population figure of the city, the year from which that population figure was obtained from the official census, and how it relates to other major cities in North America. The third sentence provides a brief factual overview of the Toronto area as a whole. The fourth sentence briefly and factually describes what Toronto is, by stating it's primary economic activity and a brief description of the people who make up the city. JPark99 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC) I am waiting for consensus first before I decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I have decided to go with Version 1. It's more comprehensive. Did you know that most Wikipedia readers don't read past the lead section? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC) I prefer version 2. I don't see the importance of the external regions, etc. to readers from outside Toronto. I don't see the mention of the other cities as warranted, either. Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator We've established which versions each participants favors; however, some of you didn't speak to the applicability of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The main part I am focused on is "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows." @Saboteurest and Alaney2k: Can you explain how withholding information from the reader in the lead is beneficial given that most readers won't read the entire article? Can you explain how the inclusion of the information in Version 1 is teasing the reader and isn't a concise overview of the city? @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: The problem seems to come from the middle two sentences. If you could keep one of the two, which would it be? Would a rewording of the other one make it a better fit for the lead or should it be removed entirely? Line 1: With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Line 2: Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. I think once I have the responses to these questions, I can look at a potential alternative to satisfy all parties. Nihlus 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC) @Hwy43: Input is welcome from all editors. To answer your question, this is just for the initial paragraph in the section. Sentences that don't belong in the first paragraph could possibly be moved to the others in the lead. Nihlus 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC) @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: This will be closed if there is no further participation. Nihlus 03:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors Sorry. Busy at work. My problem is that both are a bit overly detailed. I would keep line 1, but I would probably drop the list of cities. I would add that it is the center of the golden horseshoe, though I think "heavily" is an imprecise subjective word. I would just say large. In other words, anchors the Golden Horsehoe, a large urbanized region of 9.2 million people. Alaney2k (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC) My apologies as well. There's sections of both that I would like to see included, but they could be combined. I think version 3 proposed by Hwy43 is a great compromise. JPark99 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC) May I chime in? If no please excuse as I haven’t participated in this process before. Both editors have some valid points. There is some repetition that can and should be addressed (e.g. populous) as well as some subjective rather than objective adjectives that could be struck (e.g. heavily, international, etc.). The lead doesn't need to go into details of the Golden Horseshoe or specifically list the larger cities in North America. That is what the wikilinks for the Golden Horseshoe and List of North American cities by population articles are for. Another thing that should not get lost in this is, IIRC, the lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the article without references. The references occur later in the article when the summarized content in the lead is mentioned. So if there is content elsewhere within the article stating Toronto is regarded as one of the more cosmopolitan cities in the world, with a proper reference to support, the statement within the lead could stay without repetition of the reference. Same applies to multicultural. I would prefer to be bold and suggest the following version 3. It answers the "what" and "where" up front, then delves into size before closing with the global city content. Previously, the "where" was a tad disjointed and missing the obvious fact that it is on the shore of Lake Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Version 3 Toronto (/təˈrɒntoʊ/ , locally /təˈrɒnoʊ/ ) is the most populous city city in Canada and the provincial capital city of the Canadian province of Ontario. It is located within the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571 residents in 2016, it is the largest city in Canada and fourth-largest city in North America by population. after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Also in 2016, the Toronto is the centre of census metropolitan area (CMA), the majority of which is within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), had a population of 5,928,040, making it Canada’s the most populous CMA metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world. Further to the above, I seek some clarity. The lead is currently four paragraphs. Regardless of whatever version achieves consensus, are we replacing the full four paragraphs with just the one? I am not certain this lengthy article can be sufficiently summarized in just one lead paragraph of three to five sentences. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC) I do like this version, though I think the part around the CMA and Golden Horseshoe is overly detailed. I don't see it as so important to the understanding of Toronto, to give so much prominence to the area -around- it. Yes, it is within a large urbanized area, but too much stats. Alaney2k (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Version 3 proposed by Hwy43 is a great compromise. It's succinct yet comprehensive. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 12:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC) I have no stake in this, I just have this page on my watchlist. I think this is OK, my only change would be to "fourth most populous city in NA" not "largest city by population." Sir Joseph (talk) 17:50, 25 October 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:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Saiph121 on 03:01, 25 October 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:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)#Overcategorization (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Saiph121 (talk · contribs) SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) Roscelese (talk · contribs) Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) Betty Logan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Issues in regards to the following categories that are being disputed in it's inclusion to the main article on its categories: Category:2010s LGBT-related films Category:American LGBT-related films Category:Feminist films Category:Films about bibliophilia Category:Films about narcissism Category:Historical romance films Category:LGBT-related musical films Category:Witchcraft in film Despite being provided with sources as well accurate facts, they're considering these categories not to be listed as these were "not defining" which is the notion i'm disputing with. Have you tried to resolve this previously? a consensus was made but turns out to be biased. How do you think we can help? get into the middle ground to resolve this issue and allow the disputed categories to be listed accordingly without doubt or dispute as these disputed had accurate proofs and reliable sources to prove its inclusion. Summary of dispute by SummerPhDv2.0 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. At Talk:Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)#Wonder_Woman_a_feminist_movie.3F, Talk:Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)#Presence_of_Telekinesis_in_the_Wonder_Woman_film, Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), my talk page, their talk page, other editors talk pages and perhaps a few other places, several editors have tried to explain to Saiph121 (sometimes editing as 112.210.7.228) that WP:CATDEF states that categories should be defining characteristics: those that "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". Saiph121 has responded by providing single sources that discuss "feminism in Wonder Woman" or similar and apparently not understanding that one source is not sources commonly and consistently "defining" the film with that term.[1][2][3][4] At bottom, I think there is simply a language issue at work here. My notification of this discussion: "Your name is being listed in this resolution. Better comply."[5] Similarly, this entry simply made no sense. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roscelese Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Better comply", really? Well, it seems pretty clear to me where this is going to go, since Saiph himself admits that literally no one agrees with him. I first noticed his behavior at Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) but later noticed that he did the same in other articles - adding a laundry list of categories ranging from trivial and non-defining at best to unsourced/original research. Essentially he's trying to do with categories something that should be done, if at all, in article text, eg. categorizing B&B as a "film about composers" because there is a side character who is a music master transformed into a harpsichord or a "film about narcissism" because a side character is self-centered. As I explained to him, this would make Wikipedia impossible to navigate through the category system. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Geraldo Perez Basically the dispute is about how to practically implement Help:Defining and WP:Overcategorization in this and related articles. One side is for being fairly strict about the "that reliable sources commonly and consistently define" rule and the other side for a somewhat looser practice followed in a lot of fiction articles that categorize pretty much every plot detail, story theme, setting that has an existing category defined basically to populate the category with articles that touch on the subject of that category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC) As to the question posed below by Nihlus, I think the dispute has effectively reached consensus on the article talk page with one dissenter. I don't see value in continuing beyond that discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Betty Logan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not involved in any dispute at this article. I have never even edited it. A request was left at WT:FILM for input at a discussion about the use of categories in the article and I contributed my viewpoint to help break the deadlock in the debate. My recommendation is to let the discussion run its course at the article talk page and in a week or so request an admin closure. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Talk:Beauty and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Overcategorization discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: @Saiph121, SummerPhDv2.0, Roscelese, Geraldo Perez, and Betty Logan: Since there is what seems to be a relatively productive discussion going on the talk page right now, I am inclined to close this pending the result of those discussions. Parties, do you believe dispute resolution is necessary in this case? Or do you feel the current conversation on the talk page is enough? Feel free to respond above in your summaries. Nihlus 05:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC) As I understand it the purpose of DR is to find a way forward when every other avenue has come to a standstill. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Discussion is still progressing on the talk page from what I can see and if that doesn't resolve the issue an RFC would be the next logical step. Betty Logan (talk) 07:55, 27 October 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.

Missing and murdered Indigenous women

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DivaNtrainin on 00:12, 26 October 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 Missing and murdered Indigenous women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DivaNtrainin (talk · contribs) Fyddlestix (talk · contribs) CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two editors want the introduction to this Wikipedia page to prominently feature information that is inconsistent with known sources, missleading, and inflammatory. There has been compromise made to include sources that they want, and attempts made to edit the information to meet their needs but they have not explained why they have a problem with my edits. I have attempted to start a discussion on the Talk page to get them to explain why they don't agree with my edits. They don't want to discuss editing the Wikipedia page. They just keep mentioning it's a good source, without even looking at the source or the discussion. Now they just want to discuss the blocking and consensus policy instead of really discussing what information can be added or altered to meet my needs. What would cause me to compromise and give in to their edits is if they would just provide more information, or more statistics, or more studies, or some rationale as to why they have a problem with my edits. They could even give an example of some of the things they want to see. We are on the verge of an edit war. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to draw them out in the Talk page. At one point, I mentioned that I would avoid editing for 24 hours to get them to explain their point and/or look for more references How do you think we can help? What you can do is advise them to explain their edits. They need to provide suggestions. They need to add more information. They need to add statistics or studies. They need to do something more than keep saying "good sources, good sources, good sources" over and over. Summary of dispute by Fyddlestix Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CorbieVreccan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Missing and murdered Indigenous women 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. I have added an editor to the list. The filing party should notify the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 26 October 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.

Telaga

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 68.134.38.244 on 14:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Telaga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved No one else (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Under Categorization section of the Telaga caste home page, the following content is incorrect, Categorisation In 2002, K. Srinivasulu describes Telaga as a "backward peasant caste".[7]. Also, Selig S. Harrison noted that, in the 1955 legislature of what was then Andhra State, the Telagas had 16 legislators, next only to the Reddis and Kammas. He states that they formed a "newly active political force". However, despite their strength, the Telagas did not hold any ministerial posts.[ Correction - They are classified as Forward caste Also, Kapu and its sub castes is more powerful than what was mentioined by Mr. Selig Harrison Have you tried to resolve this previously? I did consult the community leaders of Telaga caste and they mentioned they are classified as forward caste today How do you think we can help? I request admin to correct it by adding a status column to say they are forward caste today Summary of dispute by No one else Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Telaga discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ruth Coppinger

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by This is Paul on 21:46, 26 October 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:Ruth Coppinger (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• This is Paul (talk · contribs)
• Laurel Lodged (talk · contribs)
• Spleodrach (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a long-running dispute concerning the subject's political beliefs and allegiances, and how we can describe these in the voice of Wikipedia. Having previously been a member of the Socialist Party of Ireland, Ruth Coppinger was elected to represent the Anti-Austerity Alliance–People Before Profit party in 2014, but it's unclear whether she's still affiliated to her previous party. The dispute began with an editor seeking to describe her as a Trotskyite, but without providing reliable sources. A third editor has also recently become involved in the discussion, and there is now also some disagreement over whether Coppinger belongs to more than one political party, and is engaging in entryism and subtefuge. Again, however, no reliable sources have been provided to support these claims. Indeed, it has been suggested there would be "no confession from her stating that this is her cunning strategy". Plenty of sources describe her as a socialist, but the meaning is ambiguous (i.e., whether she is a socialist or a member of the Socialist Party).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The topic has been discussed at length on the talk page, but without resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I think the dispute could be resolved by clarifying Wikipedia policy on this matter.

Summary of dispute by This is Paul

I believe that if there are no reliable sources to support the various theories about Ms Coppinger's political raison d'etre then we should steer clear of the topic, because it violates WP:BLP. Generally, the consensus with issues such as Crossing the floor and Party switching is that the person joining a new political party would cease to be a member of their former party. There are exceptions, but this would need to be supported with reliable sources.

Summary of dispute by Laurel Lodged

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

Summary of dispute by Spleodrach

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

Talk:Ruth Coppinger 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 on the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

It appears from reading the talk page that this may have been resolved by discussion there. Will the editors please state whether this matter has been resolved, or whether moderated discussion is needed?

If moderated discussion is needed, please read and comply with my ground rules. Also, if there is still a need for moderated discussion, please state, in one paragraph, what you see as the issue or issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

First statements by editors

A source was found that establishes Coppinger as a member of both parties, so that resolves the issue that prompted me to bring the discussion here. I still think there would be WP:BLP concerns though about referring to her as a Trotskyite, unless something can be found to support that. As long as the editor who wishes to add that information is prepared to find reliable sources to verify the statement before re-adding it, then I feel the discussion could be closed. If not, then it would be worth seeking an opinion on this matter. This is Paul (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ravi Shankar_(poet)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by SiphoB on 04:58, 27 October 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:Ravi Shankar (poet) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SiphoB (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an editor ScrapIronIV who seems to be biased and non-neutral with respect to this subject. Multiple sourced and verified notable achievements have been added to this person's page and this editor persists in removing them. If anyone makes a change, he refers to them as a "sockpuppet." This editor should not be allowed to edit this particular page any longer and someone with more neutrality to look into it. Another problem is that there is false information contrary to what is on the BLP noticeboard. It says the subject was accused or guilty of theft of school funds, which is simply untrue. The editor claims it is true because he's quoting a source on Fox News who SAID it was true; but in fact, simple research (such as a call to the CCSU Adminstration) reveals that is not true. Also, the fact of this subject's wrongful arrest in New York seems relevant especially since it was reported on NPR, Hartford Courant and elsewhere. Yet this information is persistantly suppressed by the very same editor who wants to serve as arbiter of what is notable or not. National Public Radio? PBS? State Arts Grants? These are indisputably notable and the continual removal of these seems like vandalism. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Communicating with the editor ScrapIronIV - have made changes reflecting accurate, sourced information in accordance to BLP policy. He keeps reverting them. How do you think we can help? I would block ScrapIronIV or at the very least make it so that he no longer as the right to edit the Ravi_Shankar_(poet) page. Thanks for your help. Talk:Ravi Shankar_(poet) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Pierre Bourdieu

This matter appears to be resolved now. One of the images was deleted as the original image it was cropped from had been removed from Wikimedia Commons, leaving its copyright status unverified. This left only one option. I hesitate to delete this outright, but feel free to archive/remove it. 109.246.75.242 (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

– New discussion.

Filed by 109.246.75.242 on 01:42, 29 October 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:Pierre Bourdieu (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Vladimir Koznyshev (talk · contribs)
• zzuuzz (talk · contribs)
• FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs)
• Meatsgains (talk · contribs)
• Coretheapple (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

No agreement can be reached about which of two available images of the person who is the subject of the article is the better, more representative and suitable one to serve as the standard.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Editing the image, but it keeps being reverted. Another editor tried to resolve it in the talk page but it has evidently not led to it being resolved as it keeps being reverted.

How do you think we can help?

Arbitrate between which of the two images is the more suitable one or encourage debate in the talk page so that a consensus might be reached that would resolve it. And in any case get the editor who keeps reverting the image to cease that bullish behavior and be more open to compromise/discussion.

Summary of dispute by Vladimir Koznyshev

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

Summary of dispute by zzuuzz

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

Summary of dispute by FreeKnowledgeCreator

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

Summary of dispute by Meatsgains

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

Summary of dispute by Coretheapple

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

Talk:Pierre Bourdieu discussion

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