Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	28 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	24 days, 18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	7 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	New	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 7 hours	EncreViolette (t)	3 days, 9 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	4 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 8 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	3 hours	None	n/a	Jonathan f1 (t)	24 minutes

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 23:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Rock in Rio

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mortyman on 17:23, 10 May 2023 (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 Rock in Rio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mortyman (talk · contribs) JimboB (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have sadly been in dispute with user JimboB for several years now regarding this issue and JimboB seems to be hell bent on not accepting any sources that disagrees with his views. The commentary has become unfriendly and totally unacceptable. In 1991 A-ha played for a record crowd of 198.000 people at Rock in Rio festival. This is a well known and accepted fact around the world, except perhaps in the US, where A-ha has not been much in media since the mid 80s. I have over several years now provided several links to sources that substantiate this, including the official Rock in Rio site. However JimboB has never accepted this and keeps on reverting the info, claiming that the sources are not good enough, even thoguh it's the official Rock in Rio website and also the biggest newspaper/Tv channel in Brazil, namely Globo Brazil. JimboB has provided newspaper clippings that mention a very different number from the day, however this is no doubt info that is from the start of the concert / day. JimboB has had some rather unplasent comments that I find problematic, such as: "Stop being childish. Journalistic sources will always take precedence over promotional fluff, especially promotional fluff misguided by years of preposterous inflated numbers being pushed by fans like you. I will always delete your numbers because they are FALSE" Just some sources: Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page) https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records) https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned) https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roses https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium Recently Jimbo B has reverted the number 198.000 to 100.000 to now no number at all and removed all my sources from article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rock_in_Rio How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe that the official Rock in Rio site and their mention of A-ha should be accepted as proof of the 198.000 number. As I have tried to convey to Jimbo B, Why would the official Rock in Rio website credit A-ha with the 198.000,a Norwegian band of all things and not a local band or lets say Paul McCartney or Guns N'Roses, if it was not true? Summary of dispute by JimboB Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. First, I have requested earlier today a third party view on this. I am bringing this to moderators' attention. Timelogs should prove this. Mortyman is merely taking my lead. Second, my sources, which I have repeatedly added to the article, are clippings from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, two of the main newspapers of Brazil back when this concert took place, which, in conjunction, make my case clear. These are first-hand sources, taken from officials by reporters at the festival's site, during their coverage of the event (not numbers inflated by hearsay after the fact). As for Mortyman's sources, over the years they have come primarily from a-ha fan sites, even when later echoed by hurried third hand reporting or by the event's website for promotional purposes. For years now, fan clubs have tried and for a while succeeded in promoting this narrative, even with Guinness which no longer publishes those numbers - which are inexact, anyway, since whatever number of people were there, they were there for a festival with plenty of acts, not a single act. No numbers of concert attendance can be more accurate than those collected in site by independent reporting. My two clippings say clearly 100.000 for a-ha, not 198.000 (Maracanã possibly didn't even hold as many people). As for "unfriendly", "unpleasant" comments, one does get flustered after ten years of trying to stop misinformation. Thanks. P.S. I suggest you take a look at Mortyman's history of edits regarding a-ha in other pages as well. Rock in Rio discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) Are User:Mortyman and User:JimboB ready for moderated discussion? Please read the rules, and, in your reply, state that you agree to the rules. If so, please state concisely what part of the article you want changed (or what part of the article you want left the same and the other person wants changed). It is not necessary at this time to tell why you want it changed or left the same. We can get to that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC) i wish to keep the headline in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_in_Rio#Rock_in_Rio_2_(1991) as is, for I consider the current version the correct one and the sources presented the most accurate, for reasons stated above. Thank you. JimboB (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Please sign your statements by putting four tildes, ~~~~, at the end of your post. This provides information to both humans and bots. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) User JimboB has for about 8 years now kept reverting A-ha's 198.000 uadience number at the Rock in Rio concert even thoguh official Rock min Rio website states this numberto be correct. The number from the Rock in Rio site should be the one used in my opinion. Yes I am and agree to rules Mortyman (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Rock in Rio) First statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) It appears that the content disagreement is about a statement that, in 1991, A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000 people. Is that the only article content issue? If that is an issue, regardless of whether it is the only one, I would like each editor to state in one paragraph why the statement should be made, or why it should not be made. Also, if different reliable sources are making different reports about the crowd for that performance, should the encyclopedia report both viewpoints, with attribution? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC) First statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) The Rock in Rio own websites states that A-ha played for 198.000 people. Why would the official site say that if it was not true. Why A-ha, a Norwegain band of all things and not a Brasilian band or Guns N Roses or Paul McCartney or someone else ?. As already mentioned: Just some sources: Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page) https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg (Scan of Guinnes Book world of records) https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html (Article from Rock in rio 2015 where A-ha's record in 1991 is mentioned) https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/?fbclid=IwAR06U4E_ru7Ilz2WMOXyOdX0PCTedY0gjoLBHiENtrQyKKfRDw3fpZxPAYg British newspaper clipping: A-ha beats Macca and Guns N roses https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg Encyclopædia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium I believe the official Rock in Rio website number should be used, as there is no reason to doubt them. The Maracana stadium back then in 1991 was capable of an audience of over 200.000. Today it could not accept such an audience as the stadium sat derelict for many years and with the newly refurbishment, the audience number has been reduced. Mortyman (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC) First statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) It is the only point of contention among us, yes. The sources I added to the article, currently in place (historical clippings in Portuguese from O Globo and Jornal do Brasil, reputed newspapers with their own pages on Wikipedia), were collected by reporters in site while covering the actual event. Those numbers, the same ones I remember from back in the day, show that not only the January 26th night, headlined by a-ha, didn't attract 198.000 people, but it wasn't even the biggest crowd in the whole event (that would have been over 100.000 people, on January 20th, a Guns n' Roses headlined night). The inflated a-ha numbers, a urban legend initiated by fans, have gained traction on the internet over time and went on to be echoed by websites, even the festival's own, in poorly fact-checked pieces, done naively or with promotional purposes in mind. For a while, even the Guinness Book of Records jumped on the bandwagon, which seemed to give credence to it (it was apparently listed as "biggest crowd gathered by a single artist", which is inexact regardless of the actual numbers, since Rock in Rio is a big music festival and other six acts performed on the same night)). I argue that no attendance numbers can be more accurate than those collected from the press directly from officials on performance's night. The 198.000 claim is a huge exaggeration, concocted by fans of a particular act to promote it (arguably Maracanã didn't even hold as many people, although this would be a separate discussion). JimboB (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) It appears that the issue is a contested claim that 198,000 people heard A-ha perform. If so, the reasonable compromise is to state that as a disputed claim, with sources supporting the claim, and optionally sources disputing the claim. Can we agree that the compromise is to state that some sources have said that A-ha played for an audience of 198,000? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) JimboB is clearly not as upp to date on Maracana audiences as he claims https://www.rsssfbrasil.com/miscellaneous/attendances.htm Please note that these are numbers from football matches where only the seating capacity was used, not the mat itself. Furthermore, Maracana was uppdated in recent years and it now takes less audience than before https://web.archive.org/web/20120922062246/http://www.estadao.com.br/especiais/maracana-fica-mais-moderno-sem-abrir-mao-de-sua-historia%2C182163.htm .JimboB referred to the Maracana page on wikipedia and claims that the page says nothing about Maracana being laying dormant and that the capacity hasn't changed. Well read the article. Read headings "21st century, renovations and 2014 FIFA World Cup" and "Disrepair after the 2016 Summer Olympics" . Is JimboB disputing the record crowds of Paul Mccarthney and Tina Turner too or preacher Billy Graham ? Cause he seems to only have a problem with A-HA. Again the official Rock in Rio website says that A-ha played for 198.000. They are not mentioning any number for any other artists. Why are they mentioning A-ha's concert of all artists ? Mortyman (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Second statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) I believe - in fact, being from Rio and having actually been at the 1991 Rock in Rio, I KNOW - the sources that support the claim are not reliable on this matter (not to mention ludicrous claims like "Maracanã having sat derelict for many years", which Mortyman just came up with and has no factual basis whatsoever as the lead section of the Maracanã article itself will prove (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maracan%C3%A3_Stadium). As silly as this point of contention may be, I believe the solidity of first-hand sources should prevail and that Wikipedia should be kept free of fan fluff. I insist: numbers delivered directly from organizers and/or city officials to the press on performance's day are neutral and reliable. Inflated claims whose origin is blurry, even if later echoed by journalistic sources deceived by propaganda, are not. JimboB (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) I don't think that my question has been answered. It appears that the statement that A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000 is commonly provided, and also often disputed. The reasonable compromise would seem to be to state just that, to state that some sources say that A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that other sources dispute that claim. If reliable sources disagree, or reasonable people disagree on whether the sources are reliable, I suggest that we state that, and let the readers know that there is disagreement. If either of you do not want this compromise, please provide a policy-based reason why you do not want it.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) I find it difficult to take JimboB seriously when he uses words like hoax and falsehood, and with such certainty. He seems to be the only one that disputes this. Inno way is it commo ly disputed. He also seem to believe that A-HA has the possibility to fool both the record label, official Rock in Rio site, international and local media. It is borderline conspiratorial. I have provided plenty of proof and I have also provided proof that the Maracana stadium was fully capable of such an audience in 1991. I was hoping for an end here. Why would Rock in Rio want to promote A-HA with such a number instead of a much bigger artist ? I am of the firm belief, that Rock in Rio website should be the authority here, as we don't know when local media got their numbers. Was it at the beginning of concert, midway or at the end ? A-ha in 1991 is elected the most remarkable moment of 30 years of Rock in Rio https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html The surprise hits with the largely Brazilian festival audience was the Norwegian group a-ha https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19910208&slug=1265195 1991 Record attendance at the worlds largest stadium. The second Rock in rio did not end without breaking a record, with the biggest paying audience for a show so far, set by the band A-ha on 26th of January with no less than 198.000 people https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ I can accept a compromise such as " According to the official Rock in Rio organizers, A-ha played for 198.000 people in 1991. However this number has been debated. Guinnes Book of Records says 195.000 " However it is clear that there is no path to compromise here. After 8 years it is very dissepointing Mortyman (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Third statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) I disagree vehemently with the compromise. I would cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes among Wikipedia policies and guidelines since this IS a hoax. This conflict has been going on for so long because it took quite a long time for the original sources to become available, for Brazilian newspapers were slow on digitizing their archival content. Meanwhile, the more bombastic story was gaining traction on the internet. And, in my view, this all boils down to comparing sources and determining their reliability. You, Robert, mentioned yourself the issue of Reliable Sources. That is precisely what I have been promoting. By sheer logic, who should be able to say for sure, or even approximately, how many people were present at a certain event? Whoever was actually there and documented it (my sources)? Or second-hand reporting and promotional links (the alternative sources)? Guys, if you would care to hear me, I can offer additional context and personal experience in our talk pages, so we don't flood this space. But please trust me: I KNOW this info to be wrong. And I cannot compromise on something I KNOW to be a falsehood. Thank you for listening, however Wikipedia decides to rule on this. P.S. Mortyman, I never questioned Tina Turner's or Paul McCartney's numbers for the simple fact that they are reliable, documented by solid sources. Rock in Rio doesn't care to put them on their website because they never played the festival. They played in the stadium. Different things. JimboB (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) We have what appears to be an irreconcilable difference of opinion as to what we should say is said by reliable sources. I don't think that we will be able to resolve this dispute as resolved, but I would like to minimize the contention. Some sources have stated that A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000. Another editor has stated that the claim that there was an audience of 198,000 for A-ha was a WP:HOAX. Please either provide one or two statements with references supporting the claim that there was an audience of 198,000, or one or two statements with references that state that there has been a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) I don't know if I understood your question correctly. You wanted statements and sources to the 198.000 number ? Here goes. " 1991 Record attendance at the worlds largest stadium. The second Rock in rio did not end without breaking a record, with the biggest paying audience for a show so far, set by the band A-ha on 26th of January with no less than 198.000 people " https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ (See bottom page and 1991 ) "The trio took almost 200,000 people, in the crowded Maracanã, to a collective pleasure. " https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html " A-ha in 1991 is elected the most remarkable moment of 30 years of Rock in Rio. The concert by the Norwegian trio A-ha for 198,000 fans, at Maracanã, at Rock in Rio in 1991, was elected the most memorable moment in the festival's 30 years, in a poll with votes from G1 readers " https://g1.globo.com/musica/rock-in-rio/2015/noticia/2015/09/-ha-em-1991-e-eleito-momento-mais-marcante-de-30-anos-do-rock-rio.html A-ha beat Macca record. 20.000 more than Guns N Roses https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Rock_in_Rio_II_1991.jpg Guinnes Book of Records: https://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g245/embopics/img072.jpg Calling A-ha's numbers a hoax is not acceptable in any way shape or form. Hoax means something criminal. There is no reaspon to claim such a thing. I will not tolerate it. As for Jimbo B ... He might not have questioned Tina Turner and Paul McCartneys numbers, due to the fact that they were not part of the festival, but JimboB has certianly questioned if the Maracana can take such numbers . Why is he questioning A-ha's numbers and not Tina Turner and Paul McCartney's ? Mortyman (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) Excerpt from one of the Jornal do Brasil sources currently in place (my translation, since it's in Portuguese): Link: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en Last paragraph of the front page summary from January 28, 1991 (that's Monday, two days after the contentious Saturday night performance). It's at the bottom of the page. The words Rock in Rio on the headline ("Rock in Rio termina sem espetáculo de Gil") will guide you there. "Yesterday, Maracanã received an audience of around 40.000, much less than the approximately 100.000 who packed the stadium the night before to watch the Norwegian trio a-ha's concert." Again, this doesn't come from 2015 articles written by understaffed teams relying on Google research or from interested parties. This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jornal_do_Brasil reporting from the event itself. Excerpt from a second source from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Globo, which I JUST collected from their archive and can add later to the article, if allowed. Indeed, it brings different - albeit similar - numbers. Link: https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg Second paragraph of the top article ("O rock no embalo da chuva"), also from Monday, January 28, 1991. First sentence (again, my translation). "Second biggest audience of the festival (beaten only by the first Sunday's), the approximately 110.000 people packed tight in the grandstands and in the field started to disperse after a-ha's performance." So this one says 110.000, which is close to 100.000 - and still it states clearly it wasn't even the biggest crowd in the EVENT, let alone the stadium's history, much less OF ALL TIME. And now, Robert, if you'll allow me, since this is a side issue (you're welcome to read, anyway): Mortyman, Also from O Globo, in April 23 1990: https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1990/04/23/03-segundo_caderno/ge230490001SEG1-1234_g.jpg Second sentence of the first paragraph: "More than 180.000 people at Maracanã, an audience record that surpassed Frank Sinatra's." Now, allowing those 180.000 in was borderline reckless. Fortunately no tragedy happened since people barely had any space to move. On the grandstands, often there was someone sitting on the steps and someone standing right behind that person ON THE SAME STEP. How do I know that? I WAS there. 180.000 people. Barely any space to move your elbows. I KNOW that 18.000 additional people simply DID NOT FIT inside the available space. JimboB (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) I will start with two comments. First, I mostly but not entirely agree with User:Mortyman about referring to a hoax. A hoax is not necessarily criminal, but it does mean deliberate falsification. Second, User:JimboB, your statement that you were there is a primary report. The issue is what secondary sources have reported, and which of them are reliable. Then I have some questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC) 1. User:JimboB – Are you stating that the report of an audience of 198,000 people for A-ha is a falsification, or only that it is completely wrong? 2. If you, JimboB, are stating that it was a falsification, can you say who originated the false claim? (That question does not need to be answered, but if it cannot be answered, it is more likely an error than a hoax.) 3. If you, JimboB, are stating that it is wrong, and is not verifiable, do you know what is the source of the error? (That question does not need to be answered. If the report fails verification, we don't need to know where it came from, but it would be a nice-to-know.) 4. JimboB: What are you saying was the audience for A-ha? Was it 100,000, or was it 180,000? 5. User:Mortyman – What is the earliest report of an audience of 198,000? 6. Anyone: What do the newspapers immediately after the performance state was the size of the audience? In this case, the reports soonest after the event are probably the most reliable. (With regard to history, more recent scholarly writings are preferred. In this case, the reports closest in time to the event are preferred.) Fifth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) 5. User:Mortyman – What is the earliest report of an audience of 198,000? Same evening or day after. It has always been 195.000 - 198.000. It has been reported in various international newsmedia over the years. I refer to already posted urls to article from British newspaper, Guinnes Book of records, early 90's and Globo articles from 2015 as well as official Rock in Rio website. The number has always been what it is and to think that A-ha has managed to fool official Rock in Rio website, various international media, including Globo and Guinnes Boook of Records for over 35 years is proposturous. As already mewntioned we don't know when the articles that JimboB is referring to was written. Was in at the start of the show, or at the end ? How many people came to the show in the end ? News segment from Globo Brazil 2015 about their show in 1991 and the show they were about to play in 2015. It gives you an indication of size both in numbers and in images. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrFoIP5e_eQ MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw More info from official Rock in Rio site: A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”. https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/ Please also note that JimboB finds reports from Globo reputable, just not in more recent news segments ? He finds them reputable when it supports his view only ? Mortyman (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) 1. It is completely wrong, as the links provided by me on fifth statement show. As to... 2 and 3. ....the origin of this, at this point it is lost in time. Somewhere around the 1990's, I would say. By the early 2000's, this claim had already gained traction. Like I said before, the Brazilian newspapers were very slow in digitizing their archival content. For that reason, for many years the inflated claim circulated unchallenged. I, for one, always knew it was wrong but, for a while, couldn't give any evidence of it for reliable sources were unavailable online. Fan clubs had already been promoting their own story for a long time at that point. Now, were fan clubs AWARE that it was a falsehood when it started or this is just a matter of hearsay being shared irresponsibly and naively? Who can say at this point? However, the minute sources become available and prove your story to be wrong and you stick to it anyway because it is more convenient... doesn't it become falsehood from that point on, even if not malicious? And the first sources became available quite some time ago. 4. O Globo says 110.000, Jornal do Brasil says 100.000, similar numbers. Both are reputable newspapers, the two most important ones in Rio back in 1991, and they have their own pages on Wikipedia to prove. Any of those are fine by me. 180.000 are the Paul McCartney numbers, which I provided for Mortyman to see (THAT is considered the Maracanã audience record but, since it wasn't a Rock in Rio concert, it needs no inclusion in the article). As for question number 6, I refer again to the links I provided on the fourth statement. They are literally from two days after the performance. They are first-hand sources, the most reliable, like I've been saying. JimboB (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) My first comment is that the official Rock in Rio web site is not an independent secondary source. This is a dispute about the reliability of sources. User:JimboB, User:Mortyman - I am asking each of you to list the two best sources that you can that support your position. I will ask the editors at the reliable source noticeboard, and we will see whether any of the sources reliably state that A-ha played to an audience of more than 190,000. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC) If you have any other questions, please ask them now. Robert McClenon (talk) Sixth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) "O trio Pop norueguês teve o maior público não apenas do evento como também de toda a história na época, levando 198 mil pessoas ao Maracanã durante seu show e quebrando recorde do Guinness Book. Ainda assim, os nórdicos acabaram ignorados pela mídia brasileira e mundial mesmo com o sucesso estrondoso de “Take on Me”, que impulsionou toda essa fama." https://www.tenhomaisdiscosqueamigos.com/2023/05/07/a-ha-rock-in-rio-recorde/ "Eles alcançaram sucesso planetário nas décadas de 1980 e 1990. No Brasil, chegaram a tocar para quase 200 mil pessoas. Mas nesta quarta-feira, em São Paulo, se exibem para uma plateia menor. Antes de matar a saudade do público brasileiro, os noruegueses da banda A-Ha conversaram com a repórter Marina Araújo." https://g1.globo.com/jornaldaglobo/0,,MUL1057248-16021,00-AHA+SE+APRESENTAM+EM+SP+E+NO+RIO.html From BBC Brazil and Globo: A-ha played for 198.000: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-62764029 / https://g1.globo.com/pop-arte/musica/rock-in-rio/2022/noticia/2022/09/02/se-a-vida-comecasse-agora-22-curiosidades-sobre-o-rock-in-rio.ghtml " In 1991 it set a world record for the largest paying audience for a single band when 198,000 people came to see pop group A-ha." https://www.britannica.com/place/Maracana-Stadium MTV 1991 A-ha show in Maracana the only one to be sold out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rtYwtiejtw I still insist that the info from official Rock in Rio site to be accepted, as there is no reason why Rock in Rio or Maracana should make up such info, to support a band from Norway if it was not correct. A-Ha was the big star on January 26, 1991. The fifth artist to perform, in a day with 7 attractions, appeared with some frequency in the country's hit charts and that led many people to Maracanã. The audience record of 198,000 people put the band in the Guinness Book of Records. The Norwegian trio played a show full of hits like “Hunting High and Low” and “You are the One”. https://rockinrio.com/rio/novidade/retrospectiva-rock-in-rio-26-de-janeiro-de-1991/ Rock in Rio official site mention (see year 1991 bottom of page) https://rockinrio.com/rio/pt-br/historia/ Mortyman (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) There they are. The ones I shared before. Links from reputed newspapers from Monday edition (the concert happened on Saturday night). Numbers collected by reporters in site, checked on Sunday, published on Monday morning. https://duyt0k3aayxim.cloudfront.net/PDFs_XMLs_paginas/o_globo/1991/01/28/03-segundo_caderno/ge280191003SEG1-1234_g.jpg (the mention is on the second paragraph of the top article) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Globo https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0qX8s2k1IRwC&dat=19910128&printsec=frontpage&hl=en (the mention is at the very bottom of the page) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jornal_do_Brasil JimboB (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) I inquired about the reliability of the sources at the reliable source noticeboard. The RSN volunteer says that they consider the BBC Brazil post to be the most reliable source. The BBC Brazil news item supports the statement that 198,000 people heard A-ha. Can we resolve the article content dispute, or are there any remaining issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) Seventh statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) I disagree, Robert. The BBC Brazil article is from 2022. You said it yourself that sources closest as possible to the event are preferrable, and I have given you exactly that: two newspaper articles from two days later, written by reporters who were actually there. I saw what that editor wrote and it was a one sentence dismissal, basically - arguably driven by a mention of the news outlet most familiar to them. And, as strong as the BBC name may be, its article is a secondary source, informed by the internet, not by first hand experience. My case relies exactly on the fact that years of misinformation made even reliable sources echo false information. After all, we all know about the crisis of journalism and how understaffed newsrooms are these days, with people relying on Google for research. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) I ask also if you have checked Mortyman's history of edits on Wikipedia as a whole and of subsequent conflicts with editors for pushing his views aggressively as established truth. Just give his Talk page a look. That would give you additional context. I know how tiresome this all is, believe me. But I do ask you to kindly reconsider that decision or give me a chance to talk to someone else about it in case you want out. Thank you. JimboB (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) We do not discuss the editing patterns of editors at DRN. We discuss article content at DRN. The question is what the article should say about the attendance. User:JimboB raises a valid point, that the BBC Brazil report was a year after the event. I think that RSN is the proper forum to discuss the reliability of sources. Please discuss your concern at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Statement 8.1 by moderator (Rock in Rio) I stated, nine days ago, that I thought that a reasonable compromise would be to state that some sources say that A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that others dispute that claim. User:JimboB rejected that compromise, saying that the statement that the audience was 198,000 was a falsification. Are you, User:JimboB and User:Mortyman, willing to accept the compromise that we state that some sources say that A-ha performed to an audience of 198,000, and that others dispute the claim, and provide sources for both positions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) I can accept the compromise, just to end this 8 + year nightmare with editor. I have given plenty of sources for the number and I have also provided sources that Maracana at the time could accomidate the amount of people, something that editor also questioned and where he clearly is wrong. I want an end to this, as the back and fort for over 8 years is just silly and time wasted. Every source that I have provided will have to be added to compromise text. Mortyman (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) Not a year after the event, Robert - if we're talking about the BBC link shared by Mortyman and which you submitted to other editors, it's from 2022! And that particular edition of the festival happened in 1991. Sources closest in time to the event are more reliable. You said it yourself. Comment on content, not contributors. That still means comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC) As for editors' patterns, I think they help explain why one of the parties is pushing their point, i.e., no commitment to historical truth but rather to making a certain act look good. Promotional work. I ask: can I insist on what I have conviction to be the truth - even on another forum if such option exists, so you can be personally free of this matter in case you prefer? Or what you're telling me is: it's either accepting a compromise or we're going with Mortyman's version because an editor who was completely uninvolved with the issue took a quick look and said in less than ten words that BBC is the only source that matters, without looking into the specifics? Before possibly accepting a compromise, I would just like to know if I have any other options. Please let me know. JimboB (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) JimboB wrote: Before possibly accepting a compromise, I would just like to know if I have any other options. Please let me know. I am a moderator and mediator, not a judge. I do not have authority over article content. The community has that authority. I do not specify the options as to the article, only as to how I will close this content dispute. I will not make a decision as to article content that does not have rough consensus, which means that in a dispute with two editors, I will not choose one version over another (unless one version is wrong based on policy). At this point, it appears that I have four possible choices as to how to close this content dispute: 1. I can close the dispute with a compromise if the editors agree to a compromise. 2. I can close the dispute as resolved if the editors agree to what RSN has said. That does not appear to be about to happen, but I list it as an option, and you can try to make a stronger case at RSN. 3. I can submit a Request for Comments to the community. 4. I can fail the discussion. That will likely end up at WP:ANI, and then the survivors will edit the article. Those are the options that I see for myself as mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) We still do not discuss the editing patterns of editors at DRN. (If any editor wants to discuss the editing patterns of another editor, they can read the boomerang essay and then go to WP:ANI.) You, User:JimboB, first declined to agree to the compromise that I offered, saying that the reports of an audience of 198,000 were a hoax. We went to RSN, and what we learned there is that reliable sources support the report of an audience of 198,000. Your choices are to agree to a compromise, to agree to rely on RSN, or to request an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) A-ha is world wide known and recognized for that number. It was a Guinnes book record at the time for pop band. After 36 years Jimbo B wants to remove it from their resume. I see no reason to not make a mention of it. It is JimboB that is making it so important, by insisting on deleting it and being so relentless about it. Over 8 years he has kept on doing it. Jimbo B says he is a former journalist but he does not seem to respect other journalists around the world and current journalists in Brazil. I opened this case in good faith, but jimboB seems to want to continue this discussion into oblivion. Mortyman (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC) You both agreed to the usual rules, which said no back and fprth discussion. What part of that didn't you understand? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Actually, it was I who opened this case, requesting a Third Opinion (it's registered in the Rock in Rio Talk page). Then you brought it here, mere hours later. All through the years, you were quite content with an edit war. If you want to show good faith, tell the whole story. JimboB (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Fact of the matter is that we both filed a complaint more or less at the same time, not knowing of eachothers individual complaints.No reason to make it more dramatic than it is. Mortyman (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC) "more or less at the same time". Yes, after ten years suddenly we had the same idea at the same time. Sure. "A-ha is world wide known and recognized for that number. (...) ...wants to remove it from THEIR RESUMÉ." That says it all, really. This is my last message to you. JimboB (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) I commented under your latest comment on the Reliable Sources thread exposing my case to the other editors. No one cared to answer but Mortyman himself. I think a good compromise could be to simply not publish anything regarding audience numbers for that edition of Rock in Rio in the article - not his version, not my version. After all, there is no such information regarding the other editions. These numbers aren't strictly necessary. The only reason I have insisted on them being correct is that, through the years, Mortyman keeps editing the article and pushing his relentless A-ha promotion. If there will be numbers, then it is important to me that they are correct, former journalist that I am, Rio native that I am, Rock in Rio follower that I am. Honestly, I'm confused as where to take this. I guess I don't navigate the multiple forums of Wikipedia well, nor do I know how to differentiate one from the other. I'm tired and I'm lost. I just don't want misinformation to prevail. JimboB (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Rock in Rio) I am about to close this discussion, and I will close it as failed, because it ended in back-and-forth discussion that was not permitted. If either of you also want a Request for Comments, you can request one, and I will compose a neutrally worded RFC. This will not change the fact that I will be closing the DRN as failed. Either of you may file a report at WP:ANI, but, as usual, I will recommend reading the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by Mortyman (Rock in Rio) I am sorry. I guess I got caught up in the heath of the moment. It has unfortunetly become a very heated debate that has been going on for over 8 years. I agree to failed. It is clear that there was no chance for an end to this disagreement. I sincerely thank you for your time and effort Robert. Mortyman (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by JimboB (Rock in Rio) 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.

Animation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mitrayasna on 16:00, 24 May 2023 (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 Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mitrayasna (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is over the images that were discovered on a vase in the burnt city. A month ago, after long discussions, we agreed on how to narrate this issue on the animation page based on the sources. After a month, one of the involved users deleted the article without a new discussion and agreement on the excuse that the text was too long. I could not satisfy him by summarizing the text and an editorial war occurred. The sources clearly say so in this case: According to historian Richard Foltz, this animated vase, made in Iran, is perhaps the world's first example of animation. .The animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi wrote that prototypes like this vase are not animation, but rather instead "forerunners." because On this goblet, the images show movement in an intricate way that is an unprecedented discovery. Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi is one of the most famous scientists in the history of animation. Why shouldn't his opinion on this be covered on Wikipedia? Joortje1 and SilverLocust do not have any convincing reason to delete Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi's comments. Not only the comments of Mr. Richard Foltz, who is a historian, are deleted, but the expert comments of Mr. Giannalberto Bendazzi are also deleted. This has no justification, it is just a matter of taste. The same problems exist in the Early history of animation article. which has been discussed at length How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? #Before-cinematography How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you should check what the authoritative sources say and quote them in the article. My suggested text to cover this topic: An animated vase, made in eastern Iran in the late third millennium BCE, is possibly the worlds earliest example of animation or the forerunner in this field. when it is spun, the gazelle appears to leap. Animation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed or notified the other editors. The filing editor should list the other editors and notify them on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC) References 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.

Sam Altman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Palm Puree on 23:06, 25 May 2023 (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 Sam Altman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Palm Puree (talk · contribs) Hipal (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I edited the page to include information about Sam Altman's 3x participation in the Bilderberg group, and it was quickly reverted by Hipal. When I asked about it on the talk page, he accused me of self-promotion. I'm not affiliated with Altman or the Bilderberg Group and the language I used in my edit was neutral. Sam Altman's Bilderberg membership is relevant, is supported by external references, and Bilderberg membership is included in other BLP articles. I don't think it's fair that he can claim my edit is "most definitely self-promotion by Bilderberg Group" with impunity and use it as an excuse to power trip. I also noticed in the edit history for this page that Hipal had been reverting other users' edits. At the time I fixed it, the page stated incorrectly that "OpenAI was founded as a capped-profit company", something directly contradicted by the source (which is a blog from when OpenAI was founded, stating it is a non-profit in the first line). Hipal had been reverting two other users' attempts to correct this sentence citing "no ref indicated", "needs review to meet independent sources". I corrected the sentence myself and added an extra source (which should negate the reason he reverted the other edits), and Hipal swiftly responded by deleting the entire sentence, commenting "trim - this article is about the person". This just seems spiteful considering he had recently acted twice before (including less than 24h ago...) to preserve the sentence, while it was objectively false no less. His short response + bizarre accusations + reverts quickly cut off opportunity for discussion and I don't think he's being sincere, so I came here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sam_Altman#Bilderberg_Group_membership How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You could help by providing a third party perspective and by recommending persisting my edits. I don't think Hipal is acting in good faith but I think he would likely defer to an external authority since he seems to be a long-time editor. I mostly just want my edits to stick. Summary of dispute by Hipal Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sam Altman discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other involved editor. The filing editor should notify that editor on their talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified the other editor on their user talk page, but the other editor removed the notification with the edit summary, "Premature". Participation in DRN is voluntary. Discussion should continue on the article talk page, Talk:Sam Altman. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2023 (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.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

– New discussion.

Filed by Chrisdevelop on 08:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Chrisdevelop (talk · contribs)
• koavf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The User:koavf has deleted an Awards table, citing WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP and has also removed the subject from the BAFTA awards Category. I have disputed these deletions on the article's Talk page. I do not agree with the assertions of the other user for reasons outlined in the revert notices and on the article's Talk page. Moreover, I have suggested that if there are individual items warranting attention such as the requirement for a citation, that is preferable to deletion of a contribution, especially a table which can take hours to create. The responses I find acrimonious, and for my part, I prefer to fix issues myself than to flag them for others to fix. With such an imprecise intervention by this editor, it believe it would be better for them to either fix the issues themselves, and submit for review, or to be specific if they do not feel they have the knowledge in the areas concerned.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like the Awards table to be reinstated, and if there are individual items on this list that are likely to be challenged under rules, that they be individually flagged, rather than the entire table taken down. The editor concerned appears not to have followed through the linked to articles, and the citations on the respective pages. Everywhere I have so far checked leads to a reliable source.

Summary of dispute by koavf

This article had unsourced information, including claims about living persons. Per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, I removed the unsourced claims. All content on Wikipedia that is not common knowledge needs a citation, either in the text or in the form of an inline citation. Additionally, Wikipedia cannot cite itself, so just linking to another article that itself has sources is not sufficient. I don't know what about anything I just wrote is controversial, nor do I know why anyone wants to add unsourced information to the encyclopedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert discussion

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

•  Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The other editor has nevertheless already responded here, and the dispute is posted on the article’s Talk page. Can you please explain the policy under which duplication on the other editor’s Talk page is now still required ? Chrisdevelop (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Priscilla)

Please read the usual rules. It appears that the main issue is whether to include an Awards table. Are there any other article content issues? Do the editors want to take part in moderated discussion subject to the rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Priscilla)

The dispute is not about having a table listing awards. The dispute is about having information that is unsourced (in an article about living persons). I am happy to discuss whatever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Concerns about unsourced information should be flagged as such, e.g. , since it isn't possible to add citations to a table if the table has been removed from the article, as happened here. Tables are particularly arduous to create, and to delete one is overkill that undoes a great deal of work by other editors, and should not be the first course of action if other options are available, such as a discussion on the article's Talk Page. It is neither necessary nor desirable to provide a citation for every single contribution, unless it is likely to be challenged. As such, the Awards table has been up for a very long time and has hitherto been unchallenged. A cluster of redundant citations impedes readability and adds superfluous bulk to the article. Priscilla is highly notable, as are the awards the film won, nearly all linked through to other articles that provide corroboration from reliable sources. Outside of Wikipedia, readers can easily verify the contributions, and there are no potentially defamatory claims about living persons in the table that I can find. I have gone through all the awards, and they're all verifiable in Wikipedia's existing citations, or easy to find. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you wrote this: it's not in reference to what Robert wrote above and doesn't answer his questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Priscilla)

Please read the usual rules again. I usually ask editors to read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. User:Chrisdevelop has not answered whether they will engage in moderated discussion subject to the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct? Can it be restored, with sources? Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources? Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

First statement by Koavf (Priscilla)

"I now infer that the issue is that there was a table of awards, and one editor removed it because it was unsourced, and the other editor wants it restored. Is that correct?" Yes. "Can it be restored, with sources?" Please. "Is there an issue about the removal of a table because it did not have sources?" Yes. "Are there any other issues?" No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

David Johnston

– New discussion.

Filed by Miesianiacal on 20:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• David Johnston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Miesianiacal (talk · contribs)
• ScienceMan123 (talk · contribs)
• Darryl Kerrigan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over where to draw the line on adding content regarding the BLP subject's connections to China within the context of the subject presently being much in the national news as a consequence of his appointment as a rapporteur on Chinese interference in Canadian elections.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:David Johnston#Removal of content relating to appointment as Special Rapporteur
• Talk:David Johnston#Daughters' university educations
• Talk:David Johnston#Latest May 2023 edit war

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute is not attracting any input other than from the aforementioned three editors. Any added voice to help find a compromise or some other resolution would be beneficial at this point.

Summary of dispute by ScienceMan123

As I see it, this dispute centers around the following questions:

1. Should Johston's notable daughter be linked from the "children" entry in his info box?
2. Is it relevant to include mention of David Johnston's family ski trips with the Trudeau family?
3. Should Johnston's comments on his relationship with China be included in the article?
4. Should mention of Johnston's daughters' attendance at Chinese universities be included in the article?

I would answer yes to all of the above. For the first, because it is standard practice, and for the others, because these topics have become a central focus of a Canadian political scandal.

For example, the following articles on David Johnston mention his family's ski trips with the Trudeau family:

Summary of dispute by Darryl Kerrigan

Thanks Miesianiacal. It is unfortunate that these issues haven't been worked out on the talk page, but in the circumstances this is a positive step. The disputes seem to be about inclusion of details about Johnston's daughters (and their education in Chinese universities) and Johnston's links to China. This is all happening in the backdrop of a Chinese election interference scandal in Canada. I think it is appropriate to note some of the pretty intense criticism that Johnston has faced since his appointment to investigate, and since he released his first report, but some of the edits seem to have gone too far. I expect this content should be dealt with more in the "scandal" article, and less (but somewhat) in his main article. Worth noting last week there was substantial criticism from journalist, politicians, academics including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] etc. All of that said, I think this can be summarized briefly in his article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

David Johnston discussion

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

To expand slightly on the summary above, there are, I think, three sub-disputes within the larger one about the line between encyclopedic and biased, namely:

1. Is where Johnston's daughters attended university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only one location be mentioned?
2. Is detail about the resort where Johnston went skiing near his cottage relevant to Johnston? And
3. Are Johnston's visits to other universities while he was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of a university relevant to Johnston and, if so, should only visits to Chinese universties be mentioned and are extensive quotes from his speeches at Chinese universities necessary? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (Johnston)

Please read the usual rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Do the editors agree to moderated discussion and to accept the ground rules? Please make a brief statement as to whether you agree to moderated discussion. If so, you may also make a brief statement as to what article content you want to change, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Johnston)

I would be happy to contribute to this process. I think for the process to be successful, all editors involved will need to participate including ScienceMan123.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm up for moderated discussion. (T'was I who requested it.) My main concern about the article, at present, is that it places very specific emphasis on Johnston's past associations with Chinese institutions, to the near-exclusion of all others; through his academic and viceregal careers, he formed connections with institutions in many countries. My concern about the article, in future, is that more mentions of China will make the imbalance even worse. There is already mention in the article of Johnston's appointment as rapporteur on Chinese interference in Canadian elections being criticized because of his past associations with China, which is expanded on in the article on the allegations of interference. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to participate. I believe that due to extensive media coverage of Johnston's alleged conflicts of interest with respect to both China and the Trudeau family, including coverage of the specific points being debated in this dispute, the factual basis for these allegations must be included in his biography. This would necessarily result in greater emphasis on his associations with Chinese institutions than his associations with institutions of other countries, since his associations with non-Chinese institutions have not become a central media topic of a Canadian political scandal. (It is worth noting that he does appear to also have had the most extensive associations with Chinese institutions during his time as university president, so these should naturally receive the most coverage, regardless.) ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)