Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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

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

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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

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

If you need help:

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

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

Become a volunteer

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

Volunteers should remember:

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

Open/close quick reference

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

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	26 days, 17 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	22 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	22 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	22 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Andrevan (t)	1 days, 7 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	18 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Nagging Prawn (t)	12 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	14 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	1 days,
NDIS	Closed	ItsPugle (t)	9 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours
Genocide	New	Bogazicili (t)	2 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 9 hours	Bogazicili (t)	17 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 21:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250

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

Deftones

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

Filed by HrZ on 09:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Deftones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Trascendence removed nu metal from the article claiming consensus without one existing. Discussions began on the talk page where myself, Fezmar9 and WesleyDodds agreed that it should be included due to the published sources already included in the article in support. Trascendence provided some sources, 7 against, while I found 22 sources in favour. When the discussion went stale (Trascendence hadn't edited the article in 17-18 days) I restored the genre. However, he has since reverted the changes and started another discussion, claiming they go against policy.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Multiple discussions on the article talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Helping to put to bed a topic that has been done to death. Consensus is clearly in favour with evidence provided. Trascendence has also been involved in a number of genre-only topics regarding Deftones. [1] [2]

Opening comments by Trascendence

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

This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved, it lasted two weeks, one week ago Hrz brought sources that aparently supported nu metal, but he stated that he haven't read all of them, and that when he did so, we will weight the sources to see who has the final word.[3] However he didn't weighted the sources as himself said, neither discussed it further, he just came and added nu metal again, because i have many verifiable sources that refute the idea of the band playing that genre I removed it again. That's the reason of the actual discussion. Anyway, I already balanced the sources, with the result being against nu metal 6#Nu_metal_again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trascendence (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Fezmar9

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

I think we've been far too civil, lenient and patient with Trascendence. Genre debates with this user go as far back as April 2012[4] and continue today. We have plainly and clearly explained why his edits are against various policies for the last six months. His opinions about what Deftones' genre is boarders on a fringe theory—no mainstream publications or articles agree with his claims, only minor opinion pieces. While I personally hear a lot of other genres in their music, it's impossible to ignore the overwhelming and widely held belief that Deftones is a nu-metal band. There is a clear consensus among editors of Deftones who understand wiki policy and guidelines that it makes sense for nu-metal to be listed in the infobox. The real heart of the issue here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by WesleyDodds

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

I came into the talk page genre debates that have been occurring on Deftones kind of sideways. I have barely edited the article and have no vested interest in what the band is referred to as (also, in my opinion debating over what goes into the infobox is small fry, for the infobox is intended to be a summary of the article's contents anyway). In this debate and the previous one about post-metal, one of my main goals has be to try to guide everyone to means of finding suitable sources to back up their viewpoints. I have tried my best to deal with everyone in good faith, but I feel it's become more and more apparent that Transcendence is primarily focused on pushing and enforcing his point of view on the article, even if no one else agrees with him (which no one has). Furthermore, he has misrepresented sources he provides to back up his viewpoint (my most recent post on the talk page addresses this), he brushes aside our comments about the quality of those sources he provides and focuses instead on the overall number (which under scrutiny becomes a smaller number), wrongly invokes WP:CON in what appear to me to be attempts to game the system, and with the statement above where he says "This started when I removed the genre nu metal in base of an agreement i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved" he's either grossly misunderstanding what occurred or outright lying, as I never agreed with him, and in fact pointed that out to him on the talk page already. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deftones discussion

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

Saluts and welcome to DRN. As far as I see, the main issue here is the addition/removal of the "nu metal" music genre from the Deftones article. Also, I see some civility comments over Trascendence. We will be solving the first issue here by now. From what I read above, seems like Trascendence understood (?) that he was uncorrectly adding the genre and now he removed it. I checked the article and this seems to be solved. Is this solved by now? Or there is any other action or issue to be analyzed? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is resolved, because no one of the editors involved have replied in the talk page or here. Althought something like this happened the last time: two weeks quiet and without any problem, but then the same issue pops up again, althought this one seems to be more definitive than the previous discussions. Trascendence (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not resolved. The consensus and preponderance of evidence is in favor of including nu-metal in the infobox. Trascendence is under the opinion that it's widely believed that Deftones don't play nu-metal, and that because no one noticed that he previously removed nu-metal, that we were all clearly in favor of its removal. Neither of these statements are true. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references were weighted two days ago, the result favors the deletion of nu metal from ythe infobox [5], all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal and I even gave advise in the talk page, also, looks like you just forgot (again) what consensus is. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is still not resolved. Since the last reply on the article talk page, it has been shown that there are more sources in favour of the genre. Trascendence is prone to making assumptions as well about editors ("all the editors noticed that i removed nu metal," "i had with the editor Wesleydoods and a silent consensus from the other two editors involved") when he has been told otherwise. It has also been pointed out to him that WP:SILENT is not a policy or guideline, yet he invokes it much the same. The only resolution he has spoke of is waiting for their new album to come out and, ergo, more sources (through reviews) but that doesn't comply with WP:CRYSTAL. HrZ (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied in the talk page. Trascendence (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is clear, I'm going to refrain from further discussion on the article talk page and instead comment here until this matter is settled, as I don't see us resolving the deadlock without the aid of a third party. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is probably the best way forward. HrZ (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources to support my statement in the talk page, however, very probably i won't be online tomorrow, (I'm saying this because i don't want my abscence to be confused with some kind of consensus). Trascendence (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have made such an assumption anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out to any dispute resolution volunteers who wade into this debate that I take issue with Trascendence's attempt to shut down discussion in his favor while this dispute resolution is ongoing. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the delay guys. I was kind of busy but I am back here. So, as far as i can read again, seems like consensus has not been reached whether to add or remove nu-metal. Now, how did you weight the sources and how did you reached the assumption that it was indeed in favour of removal? I will take a look at all the discussions again to illustrate myself more into the context; while I am at it, I beg you all to please answer these brief questions i left- Thanks- — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay again. I think i got it: Merely mentioning "nu-metal" in the infobox is, in my opinion, either pointless and useless. They have been categorized as nu-metal in the past and several good sources destroy this claims with good rationales and musical and historical studies, comparing the band's work with other famous rock groups like Korn or Limp Lizkit. I would recommend the avoidance of the addition of the nu-metal genre in the infobox and heavily expand on this information in the respective section. It would make a very interesting read to know how the band was first "miscatalogued" as nu-metal and then several sources discussed the accuracy and debatability of this. — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. My general impression of the sources is that most of them who don't outright say Deftones are a nu metal band either say they are an unconventional nu metal band (1, 2, 3) or moved away from the genre (1, 2, 3). I need to reexamine the sources, but as I recall only one source (1) claims they were "miscatalogued". WesleyDodds (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i was just giving a general comment and "miscatalogued" is OR from me :P. What i tried to say is that it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that such a thing belongs in the prose, but given how so many sources discuss the band as nu metal (indeed, one of the genre's more noteworthy bands) wouldn't that be a good reason to list the genre in the infobox? I'm not pushing the point; I'm curious as to what your honest assessment is considering the sources provided. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu mtal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" i consider the idea of ΛΧΣ (the idea of explaining how they were miscatalogued and then moving away from the labe) a good alternative, i can write that down this week if we reach a consensus. Trascendence (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ΛΧΣ and the other involved editors, do you agree that "There far more sources saying that they were lazily dumped in the nu mtal thing than sources saying that they're "unconventional-nu metal" based on the information provided? I don't, but I'm open to having my mind changed. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I agree, but I will look at the sources again. "it would be better to explain how they have been considered nu metal and then how they weren't considered nu metal and such" - I could be wrong (feel free to point out if I am) but something like this was suggested before in previous discussions. As WesleyDodds pointed out, they were one of the more noteworthy bands of the genre and would like to know what ΛΧΣ thinks. HrZ (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crunkcore, Kesha

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

Filed by 3family6 on 22:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Crunkcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Crunkcore (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Kesha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Kesha/Archive 4 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:Kesha/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

For over two years, there has been on and off debate as to whether Kesha should be listed as a crunkcore artist on the crunkcore article, and if so, how. It stems from a mention in a single source, an Allmusic review of Streets of Gold by 3OH!3. Author David Jeffries states "Either way, 'My First Kiss is the zenith with a hook that incorporates kissing noises along with some come-on’s from crunkcore queen/special guest Kesha." The first objection of Kesha being listed was by an IP editor in August 2010. Also discussed was whether Kesha should simply be listed, or whether a more detailed explanation is needed. In January 2011, User:Lothar von Richthofen closed the debate as a speedy keep with the entry being a simple list. The second phase of the debate opened the next month, when another IP editor claimed to have personally emailed Jeffries as to how serious his labeling of Kesha as "crunkcore queen" was meant to be. According to the transcript that this editor posted, Jeffries did not mean it to be a serious genre label at all. However, an RfC determined that this email is not a published source and could not be verified, so it was deemed unreliable. The third phase of the debate was opened up by User:Chrisbkoolio, who felt that while Kesha should be mentioned, she should not be simply listed but rather given a more detailed explanation. The discussion basically ended with a decision by me and User:Syxxpackid420 to have a simple listing. However, disruptive edits from IPs over Kesha convinced me to ask for RfC. The resulting RfC wording for the article was: "Also, David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." Some editors, mainly Syxxpack, objected to this decision. I opened another RfC and Syxxpack supplied additional sources. These were unreliable. Discussion is now stagnant.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There have been three or four discussions including two RfC's and maybe a third opinion request, plus two small discussions on the Kesha page. Page protection has been tried numerous times.

How do you think we can help?

I have no idea. :) Good luck!

Opening comments by krazycev13

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

Weird how this is the first thing that pops up when I come back to Wikipedia. Frankly, I just want this unnecessary debate to be over. In all honesty, Kesha is not a crunkcore artist under any stretch of the imagination. If people say don't keep her, then don't keep her. I don't think it's a necessary inclusion, personally, and it probably is inappropriate to cite an off-handed reference. I feel like this one can't be treated as black and white, sometimes a rule may need to take the backseat to logic. However, I won't argue if it's kept. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 15:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Syxxpackid420

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

Why are we advertising David Jeffries, Wikpedia is not an advert. Why are we using so many weasel words, the paragraph does not state they are but that they can be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Hadomaru

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

As there is only one source that refers to Ke$ha as such, and because it is only in an offhand manner, I feel we have no real reason to keep Ke$ha in any article about Crunkcore. Especially as this one small citation has caused so much controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadomaru (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Tryptofish

I think I might have responded to a content RfC about this, a very long time ago, but I really have little memory of it, nor much current interest in the question. I came here because the bot notified me. I don't think I have much to offer the discussion, but if anyone would like me to come back and give it a closer look, please feel free to tell me that at my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Mabuska

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

I only came across this issue when I volunteered via an RfC and my particpation has been quite limited. My view is still the same - if a source has stated Kesha is a crunkcore artist then it is sourced. IIRC the last time I was involved, one editor allegedly emailed the editor of that source as they disagreed with it however I objected as that is original research so is inadmissible as evidence that Kesha isn't a crunkcore artist. Personally I believe this issue boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE and is also one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia - unless the whole dynamic at the root of it has changed, yet from the description above it doesn't appear so... I think. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Jonjonjohny

Just as User:Mabuska has said, this boils down to WP:IDONTLIKE quickly. The source supports this, and other sources throughout the history of the article have defended this addition. I support the use of the source and the inclusion of Kesha. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Rich Farmbrough

Just a little note: While the email may not be a RS (or more accurately verifiable) for citing in the article, if we assume that it is genuine it would be foolish to continue to include the genre assignation, sans any other RS. Our policies are there to help us produce quality product, not to get in the way of it.

I can see no other assignation of the genre Musique-radio says A écouter gratuitement sur Musique-radio.com, « My First Kiss » signé 3OH!3 et Ke$ha est le single choisi pour annoncer l'opus « Streets Of Gold » du groupe crunkcore américain. and that seems to be about it.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Opening comments by Eduemoni

The discussion itself was based solely upon a statement from a interviewer who described Pop and Electropop female artist Kesha as "crunkcore queen", however this source relies only upon one and one statement only, Kesha didn't label her work or herself as Crunkcore artist, in contrary, Kesha only participated in one track which is influenced by this style which is a song by 3HOH an yet another electropop american group, the song My First Kiss is the one that this interviewer used as reference, (IIRC) however like I stated in the discussion, this song is not crunkcore as well, which leaves this statement with a weak basis, to matter of comparison, Madonna is the queen of Pop, Michael Jackson is the king of pop, Elvis is the king of Rock and Roll and Aretha Franklin is the queen of soul, how comes a newcomer is the king of a genre or style?

Crunkcore, Kesha discussion

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

Are uninvolved editors listed? Perhaps the filer included several uninvolved editors that merely commented in the past RfCs on this topic? The number of involved editors may be only 4 or 5. I mention this because it is customary to wait for opening statements by all participants, but with so many listed, it is likely that some will not provide comments. My recommendation is that the filer delete subsections above for editors that are not actively involved (meaning in the past month, in the articles' talk pages) in the dispute, unless those editors have already posted a comment. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first time at DRN, so I am unfamiliar with procedure. I wanted to err on the side of caution and include most of the individuals who seemed to have made some contribution to the discussion that actually affected the outcome. I'll remove all the non-active participants who have not yet commented.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is recent talk page discussion? - A DRN case can only be opened if there has been ar recent (in the past few months) talk page discussion. I'm not seeing where the recent discussion is on this topic. I looked in the two primary talk pages and I don't see any discussion, for instance, the discussion on Keisha in the Crunkcore talk page is dated May 2011. Also, the article list at the top of this DRN case includes a couple of talk page archives from one or two years ago. Can the filer (or anyone) point me to links showing a recent talk page discussion on this topic? If there are no recent discussions, this DRN case should be closed, and the discussion needs to happen first on the talk page (yes, for the 3rd or 4th time). If the discussion is likely to be contentious, a WP:RFC should be opened on the talk page, left open for one month, gather lots of input, then closed by an admin. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent discussion is at Talk:Crunkcore#Upstart Magazine source. It was the ongoing conflict between myself and Syxxpack that prompted me to file this DR request. More specifically, I filed this because the dispute has spilled out onto the actual article, as a look at the edit history will show. Basically, Syxxpack has been reverting the article back to simply listing Kesha as an artist described as crunkcore, while I keep reverting it back to the RfC decision's wording. It is not an edit war per se, but it definitely is unstable and I want this conflict over. I don't care what the final decision is regarding Kesha, I just want this to be resolved.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: The reason that I have been reverting Syxxpack's edits is simply because I am trying to enforce the RfC decision. As I said above, I no longer care what the actual content is.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restate the RfC decision here (and give a link to it)? When was it closed? Was it closed formally by an admin? --Noleander (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the talk page, the discussion is very confusing. I'm actually not sure how the RfC's ended now. The first RfC debate can be found [6]. I am the one at fault here, I was unfamiliar with how RfCs work and closed the discussion, possibly prematurely. That is actually why I opended the second RfC, which went nowhere, a bot closed the RfC as expired. So maybe I try a third RfC?--¿3family6 _contribs 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the most recent RfC had clear consensus, it can be used as a starting point; but if the RfC did not achieve solid consensus, then it doesn't provide much guidance here. But let's not give on up the DRN process yet. Does anyone object to the simple wording presently found in the Crunkcore article: "David Jeffries of Allmusic referred to Kesha as the 'crunkcore queen' when noting her guest spot on the 3OH!3 album, Streets of Gold." That is supported by the sources that I see. I have not yet seen a source saying she is not a Curnkcore artist. And I have not yet seen any proof that Jeffries is not reliable. Some editor comments, such as from editor Eduemoni, say she is not crunkcore, but his comments are not supported by sources. Unless there are some source saying that Jeffries was kidding, or other sources that say she is not crunkcore, that sentence looks pretty legitimate. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purportedly Jeffries himself has said he was kidding. Unless we have reason to disbelieve this (pace Roth) we should not be including it unless the quote itself is a significant piece of commentary. If the artist is not anywhere described as crunkcore except in one throw-away remark, it would be undue weight to include that remark. Rich Farmbrough, 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Stating that a newcomer which sparked a lot of controversy about her vocals (either live or studio) and imagery, is the least ironic, people always praised Jessie J from day one, and said she had potential to become a queen, I find his statement about Kesha either a satire or a sarcasm. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Rich Farmbrough that using a single 'throw-away' remark is not enough to list her as 'crunkcore'. If further sources can be found to back up the genre claim then by all means, put it back in. However, I point out that according to WP:BURDEN the emphasis is on those that wish to include the definition of crunkcore to source it appropriately. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can David Jeffries be removed from the crunkcore. Like 3Fasmily6 i don't care if Kesha is included. (Syxxpackid) 82.16.27.28 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FOOTY

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Nlu on 02:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Wikipedia talk:FOOTY (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are editors -- particular, one Kai Lau (talk · contribs) -- who have been resisting any attempt at diffusing the large and unwieldy Category:Chinese footballers and have reversed not only my own attempts at diffusion but also that of Dsp13 (talk · contribs) at diffusion. They (and particularly he) do not seem to have any grasp of the principles under WP:CAT and refuse to learn how subcategorization works.

I've tried to reason with them, but they (particularly he) refuse to listen. Perhaps I'm getting too frustrated. Perhaps inappropriately so. But that's why I'd like some independent voices in to see if I have. Certainly I don't believe that people should simply reverse the hard work of others (in this case, myself) without good reason, and certainly acting as if they have no understanding of WP:CAT. (Another user in the same vein, Mentoz86 (talk · contribs), is now claiming (ridiculously) that geographically categorizing these players is OR -- as if it is OR that, e.g., Dalian is in Liaoning and Liaoning is in China!

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There was a prior thread in which I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that the consensus was going to be that someone else was going to try to diffuse the players by position, which will certainly cut down on the clutter. But the only attempt by Dsp13 to do so was reversed (again, without good reason, in my opinion). These editors are blocking diffusion with no good, grounded-in-policy reason. (For the earlier thread, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73.)

How do you think we can help?

Naturally, I'd like people to convince that those who (in my opinion don't understand WP:CAT) oppose the diffusion that they're wrong. :-) But that might not be what you conclude. What I really want is for neutral voices to step in and suggest a proper route to go about this. WP:FOOTY seems to be acting like a province of its own, which, as I explained WP:CONSENSUS doesn't allow it to be, but that appears to be falling on deaf ears, too.

Opening comments by Dsp13

I don't know much about either football or China, but I've done some categorization in the past. Category:Chinese footballers is one of a number of very large national footballer categories, and Nlu was trying to diffuse it by geographical subregion. S/he was inclined to see resistance to this as parochial ignorance, or wilful obstruction, of the general need to diffuse large categories. Other WP:FOOTY editors reacted badly to this, arguing that the geographically diffused categories weren't natural or recognisable categories: (1) using the diffused categories required specialist geographical knowledge unavailable to most football fans; (2) the resultant regions were not as 'defining' of the footballer as nationality (as defined by international footballing bodies); (3) assigning a region to a footballer would in many cases be arbitrary or not well-defined. (I think some of these objections amount to saying that the geographically-diffused categories seem non-defining to football fans.)

My compromise proposal was to diffuse by nationality and position. I created and populated a Chinese midfielder category, and then hung back for ten days or so to see if there were any serious objections. Kai Lau reverted my population of this category (unfortunately I didn't notice at the time, since s/he informed me on an archived portion of my talk page). If s/he hadn't have done this, I planned to put time into populating categories by nationality and position - which I'm still happy to do in principle (let me know if that's wanted!), though I'm not at all interested in doing so without consensus. Dsp13 (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Kai Lau

My original concern as expressed in the earlier thread Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_73 was that I find the navigation too esoteric for the casual football fan to understand compared to the traditional alphabetical sorting which we have now. Nlu has constantly argued that we read WP:DIFFUSE but clearly it states that "there is no limit on the size of categories" and compared to some of the more popular simular pages such as Category:English footballers that goes up to 13,000+ then Category:Chinese footballers is tiny by comparison. I have since tried to reason with Nlu where I suggested that what he is trying to achieve will as GiantSnowman points out create "mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles" (GiantSnowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)) and that if he still determined to carry out his diffusion then try Category:Brazilian footballers instead because it is a more popular page and the reaction would be significantly larger in his attempt to change the general football consensus within wikipedia. Unfortunately Nlu's reply was malicious and he accused me of being a "child" (Nlu (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)). User talk:Kai Lau 15:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Mentoz86

I've only been involved in discussing this case at WT:FOOTY, and my main concern when it comes to categorization is that in the football-world Category:Footballers from Foo is not the same as Category:Fooian footballers. I've tried to propose different ways to diffuse Category:Chinese footballers (and the 200 other similar categories), and I thought we reached a consensus to diffuse it by position. For some reason, this doesn't happen and User:Nlu comes back and starts over the same discussion, and we've tried to reason with the editor but it looks like the editor refuses to follow local consensus.

When urged by User:Kai Lau to diffuse Category:Brazilian footballers instead, Nlu says that "he don't have the expertise over Brazilian geographical/geopolitcal entities". In my opinion, if we should include something in the article it should be sourced in the article, not use our own reasearch. That means that if we were add "Footballers from Beijing" to an article, it should be sourced in the article that he was from Beijing, which means that anyone could in theory diffuse categories like that without being a "expert on geography and geopolitical entities".Mentoz86 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by GiantSnowman

My issue with diffusing by location is that is an absolute BLP nightmare. How do we know a person is from X? Birth place? Where they grew up? Where they live now? Nlu is not able to provide a cogent argument supporting his proposal, hence why it has not received any support at the relevant WikiProject. Diffusing by position is slightly better as there are more reliable sources which state position, but still not ideal - many players play in multiple positions, and it seems we are creating more work for ourselves. Plus why is Nlu only concernes with Chinese footballers? Any new category system should apply to all relevant categories, not the one you have most knowledge in. Showing a bit of OR, perhaps with his knowledge of Chinese geography rather than using RS to support his BLP edits? This isn't a 'dispute' - this is one editor failing to get consensus for mass changes that will affect hundreds of categories and tens of thousands of articles. Finally, to be frank, I don't see the point in diffusing the category at all. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Giant Snowman 09:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Arsenalkid700

Sorry but this will be short from me as I do not have proper use of a computer right now. Basically what Snowman and Mentoz said. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FOOTY discussion

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

This one is pretty clear cut. One cannot categorise articles based on original research, there has to be some basis for inclusion in a category in the article - just "knowing" that they belong in the category is insufficient. (To the other DRN volunteers, can you keep an eye on this to see if any more assistance is needed, but I don't think it will be required.) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the key part of the issue, however, Steven. All these articles which I categorized have birthplace assertions, which appeared to be backed up by ball club Web sites at least (as well as such sources as sports-reference.com, which are generally reliable). If that's what's considered OR, then the birthplace assertions should be tagged as OR, which (correctly) they aren't because these birthplace assertions appear to be reliable. Certainly no one who is opposing me on these issues are tagging them with {{cn}} or similar tags because I think they too realize that these are generally reliable.

The larger question here, really, is whether/how to subcategorize these articles, and as I've noted, the "You shouldn't take these out of the Category:Chinese footballers category!" comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding about how subcategory trees work. What I was referring to as my expertise is knowing, for example, that a player who is confirmed to be from Dalian is, by the clearly factual and non-OR fact that Dalian is in Liaoning and Liaoning is in China, moveable to a Dalian-specific category. Beijing is in China; there's nothing OR about that. Heilongjiang is in China; there's nothing OR about that either. Meanwhile, the "why don't you go organize Brazilian articles?" assertion is a non sequitur because (1) I don't know which Brazilian cities are in what Brazilian states because I simply don't know Brazilian geography and (2) by that logic, why don't these people opposing me go edit pages regarding, say, pornographic actors? These editors edit footballer articles because they have knowledge and/or passion in them. They can't turn around and require me to go edit articles that I have insufficient knowledge in, while at the time insist that I can't use my knowledge here. Do we really need a citation on each article that Dalian is in Liaoning? That is so factual that it can't arguably be OR. It would be like requiring a citation each time that someone who's from New York City has to be shown to be from the State of New York. --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu - please accept what we have informed you at the original discussions, and what Steven has said above. Your argument fails thusly - you have not presented a valid reason why the categories need to be diffused, and your proposal has BLP flaws. A webiste saying Player X was born in City Y does not actually mean that he is from City Y, or that region. To use Chinese examples - you could be born in Beijing to parents visiting from Shanghai, stayed there 2 days, and spent your entire life in Shanghai. You would say that they are from Beijing which is clearly not the case. Giant Snowman 16:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion that he/she is not "from Beijing"; articles throughout Wikipedia have been placed in "from" categories based on birthplace. I understand your point on it; I disagree with it. But again, this point illustrates that the issue is not about OR or verifiability; the issue is about what "from" means, and your belief on what "from" should be is at variance with the rest of Wikipedia practice. (See, e.g., Owen Nolan.) There shouldn't be a separate, heightened standard for footballers when the rest of Wikipedia doesn't impose such a standard. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also made the point of "there's no need to diffuse"; I opine differently. A category that is 550+ (and growing) in size calls out for the necessity of diffusion. No, there is no maximum size for categories, but a category that is that large or larger is useless for any purpose. As I noted above, the "Why don't you go diffuse an even larger category?" argument is a strawman. What I am seeing the argument as boiling down to is "we don't want an outsider to mess with our domain," which runs counter to the maxim that Wikiprojects are not supposed to be their own little domains. --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So there's disagreement as to which players fit in which category? There's no RS being used? Yep, like I said - BLP violation. 550 is not large for a category, there are plenty of others which are much, much bigger - football and non-football - why don't you try and suggest diffusing them? We're going round in circles here, so I suggest you listen to Steven's advice rather than carrying on. Giant Snowman 16:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how talk of OR and BLP are to the point. Nor do I understand the call to do this to Brazilian footballers rather than Chinese footballers. I don't know if this is receiving attention from a volunteer or not. It's a categeorization issue: maybe it might have been better discussed at WP:Categories for discussion. Dsp13 (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR because no references are being used to support the cats - just an assumption that being born in X means you are from X. It's BLP because it involves articles of living people. CFD would simply repeat the arguments we saw over at WP:FOOTY. Giant Snowman 09:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with what the 'people from X' categories mean is that they don't have very clear criteria: I don't agree that someone mostly brought up in Shanghai, but born in Beijing, is "clearly" not from Beijing - these geographical cats are often used with the implicit assumption that being born in X means you are from X. I've never seen references used to support cats directly. Some footballers are clearly living, and pages about them shouldn't violate BLP strictures - but I don't see how that's relevant to the question at issue. I agree that restarting discussions often just means that the whole thing is rerun, so CFD might be a waste of time - but at least people at CFD have experience at thinking about categorization specifically. Dsp13 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should never use "assumption", implicit or otherwise - that violates everything that Wikipedia is about. Giant Snowman 09:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the advantage of making assumptions explicit is that then they can be critically considered. I think some people have used these 'from' categories to just mean born in (this usage has the advantage that it has very clear criteria of applicability), others (you?) have used them to just mean grew up in (this is less clear-cut, where kids have moved around), and others have used them to mean born or grew up in. I'm not sure if the answer is to try to prescribe their proper usage more exactly, or to keep them as inclusive but less clear-cut categories. I think I agree with you that whichever way we go here, there are problems with wholesale diffusion of these large national categories to them. Dsp13 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast of the United States

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 67.87.242.210 on 05:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

East Coast of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Hoppingalong (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Hoppingalong (talk · contribs)
ɱ (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Hoppingalong seems to think that every clause and every sentence needs an inline citation. This can be shown with the current (11:47PM EST) version of the East Coast article, every sentence under the introduction has an inline citation, as that's all that Hoppingalong will accept. He will delete any information without a citation, and will support IP vandals who delete entire sections of information without any stated reason. This statement can be supported by looking at the revision history of the East Coast article.

Meanwhile, I am trying to bring forward old information that has been deleted in 2009 and 2012 by IP users with no stated reason. Hoppingalong has blocked and undone my every move. I have undone deletions by the IP users, who stated no reasons, but I have not undone any of Hoppingalong's changes. He is repeatedly 'attacking' me and attempting to start an 'edit war', and I have tried, both politely and sternly to make him stop, yet I will not edit-war with him, I have not edit-warred with him, and that is why I request a resolution through this request form.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to talk to Hoppingalong. Although nothing was discussed on the article's talk page, the discussion took place on Hoppingalong's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Does every single clause in a Wikipedia article need an inline citation? I think not, Hoppingalong thinks contrary. Tell me and him what the real answer is.

Opening comments by Hoppingalong

I am not sure this is the place to initially discuss what should be included in an article when the requesting editor has not discussed anything on the article's talk page. So anyways... In the recent series of edits I have removed only information inserted by ɱ that was of no value ("international airports are located in states all along the coast") or that lacked any indication it is a fact worthy of inclusion in the article, and possibly POV ("Republic Airlines, Air Wisconsin, and American Eagle Airlines are some of the several regional airlines with flights across the East Coast.") and that was unsourced to boot. [7] Earlier, another Wikipedian removed a random list of bodies of water that was included in the article. When ɱ reinserted it without explaining why it belonged (why not a list of forests, rivers, streets, etc in this article?), I reverted the reinsertion.

If ɱ is complaining that I have added Reliable Sources, that is true as can be. I have added 5 of the 6 there now, as well as several of the facts not before in the article. As for whether a "fact" needs a Reliable Source or citation, WP:V seems to cover that.

What "facts" does ɱ want to add, based on what Reliable Sources? If the facts are actually appropriate and relevant to the subject and Reliable Sources support them, they should be included. Reverting to a version of the page that was unsourced, dubious, random, and unencyclopedic should not happen, though. Hoppingalong (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by ɱ

Let me refute all of what Hoppingalong is saying above. Firstly, this is the place to discuss, as the conflict was discussed in great depth on a talk page before coming here. As for Hoppingalong's reverting my edits, I do not believe that my information was valueless, and his example was really of value, as many countries are not plentiful in int'l airports. Take Turkmenistan, with its one int'l airport. Turkmenistan is a good deal larger than the U.S. State of California, a state that has 11 int'l airports. Costa Rica is twice the size of New Jersey, it has twice the landmass, yet their number of int'l airports is the same. Sudan and Chad are enormous (Chad bigger than Texas and Sudan 3x the size of Texas), yet together they have three int'l airports. Texas has a whopping 21 airports, and Sudan (3x the size), has a mere 2. So, no: my information is not valueless. To state that there are int'l airports all along the Coast is valuable, and so many regions are very scarce in int'l airports. I would have even listed all of the int'l airports if there were a couple, but the list is so large that I chose not to. That just goes to show how small the ratio is between landmass and # of int'l airports. Going on, Hoppingalong states that he removes things unworthy of inclusion. That is right out. You cannot remove AGF edits because you think they're unworthy. That's what the 'Talk' page is for. And as I stated before- 'unsourced to boot' is not something that allows removal of edits. Sorry, no. Then you state a WIkipedian removed a list, I'd like to object to the term 'Wikipedian', as I see an IP user blanking whole sections in this article as well as the List of U.S. state abbreviations as a reckless vandal. He is no Wikipedian. And I do not need to explain why something belongs after a vandal blanks entire sections, the procedure is to revert the vandalism and state it as reverting vandalism, which is what I did.

Your middle paragraph shows how much of an exhibitionist and strutter you are, and your sickeningly profound pompousness. And you state that WP:V covers reliable sources, and it does, it really does. It states that facts must be verifiable. Note that it does not say that facts must be verified. It does Not want people to verify their every sentence, it wants people to make sure that while writing, they should keep in mind that everything they write should be able to be backed up by a source.

What facts do I want to add? All that I have tried to add, all that you will simply delete with a click of a button, without a second thought, all that several IP users have vandalised over the years, no reason stated. I would like to point out that the current version of the article is the version that Hoppingalong is happy with right now, with inline cites after every clause or sentence under the intro, and no picture worthy enough for its inclusion, him citing relevance. For the sake of the record, the full unvandalised article currently lies at User:Ɱ/sandbox3, which did take good effort to reconstruct, effort that Hoppingalong's confounding morals will undo and twist up without a second thought to it. Please note that the sandbox page is not how I want the article to look, just that I want it closer to this, and with the majority of the information on it.

East Coast of the United States, User talk:Hoppingalong discussion

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

Comment from DRN volunteer - Hi. Thanks for coming to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN) with this dispute. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. The WP:Verifiability policy requires that all statements be supported by WP:Reliable sources. To quote from that policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". Therefore, if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided. In particular, see WP:CHALLENGE which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material.... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." WP does contain an interesting essay Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but that is just an essay and carries little weight when resolving issues. For those editors that are reluctant to provide citations for "obvious" facts (such as that highway 95 runs up the East Coast) bear in mind that non-US readers may benefit from citations because they serve as a list of avenues for further research. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Regarding the prior talk page discussion: The only talk page discussion so far is a small discussion on an editor's talk page, but that won't be noticed by editors that watch the East Coast article. I suggest that the parties read the WP:Verifiability policy very carefully, then start a discussion on the article's talk page. In that discussion, they should apply that policy to the material (transportation, history, etc) that is the subject of this dispute. If the discussion reaches a stalemate after a few days, then start a new DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to uninvolved editor/DRN volunteer - Thank you for a response. I have to say that your sentence regarding WP:V is either misworded or wrong. WP:V states that any statement challenged or likely needs a cite, not that all statements need a cite. I also have a problem with this- "if any editor, such as HoppingAlong, challenges the material, an inline citation must be provided." If a user challenges every little detail in an entire article, then a cite is needed for every little detail or else it all deserves to be wiped out??? I'm fine with citing some things in an article, I think that's very good, but an article is not supposed to look like what that East Coast article looks like right now. A cite after every sentence??? That isn't necessary, yet Hoppingalong thinks it is and will delete anything that doesn't have one. Go look at the article and the cites after every sentence in the body 'paragraphs' and really tell me that's how an article should be. Go, look at it, really. I'll even link it- East Coast of the United States. With regards to the post scriptum, why start a new discussion when the only involved editors cannot come to an agreement and are working at it here? And the discussion on the user talk page states both of our opinions, the involved editors of the article. So now there is a stalemate, and now there is a brand new DRN case right here.--ɱ 21:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Most facts do need to have a Reliable Source referenced. If you look at starred/featured articles, the lead section are often not referenced. That is because they are only summarizing the more detailed stuff that is actually referenced in the same article in the body sections of the article. The same goes for the Information Boxes. If the data is referenced in the article itself, the data repeated for convenience in the Box would not necessarily need to be; though it would not necessarily be a bad thing, either. FWIW, ɱ, I have only reverted your additions three times ever at this article. Each was different material you had reinserted that another wikipedian had deleted or was some new stuff you added. I reverted each time for slightly different reasons, mostly because the "facts" or list of links did not belong even if you had referenced them. Each also failed to pass WP:V, but that was only part of it. If you dislike WP:V, I am not your problem and this is the wrong place to give a complaint. This is not really a WP:V interpretation dispute anyway, though. Rather than overgeneralize and setup false arguments that I never made, you should go to the article talk page to explain why unreferenced drivel like "International airports are located in states all along the coast" belongs in the article. A hearty thank you to Noleander for helping; ɱ, let us move on and not waste Noleander's time. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is directed primarily towards Hoppingalong - Now let's not run off here prematurely; this issue is part of a larger problem, and I'll be so bold as to say that it is meaning that either Hoppingalong or I have absolutely no idea how to edit Wikipedia. Noleander and other third opinions can tell you and I our wrongs in the editing of the East Coast article, as neither of us can apparently listen to each other.

Three times reverted is three times too many. I was startled at one, as very, very few ever revert my edits, possibly because I try to make as beneficial ones as I can. Those three I consider beneficial. Regarding your statement about the intro section- yes, inline cites aren't as necessary as it's a summary. Yet info in a body section does not need an inline cite. WP:V and other policies & essays tell you that. And sure, you had your own reasons for reverting, but apparently nothing will get through your filters except cited material, and that's just not right. I urge you, read other articles. The body paragraphs don't have inline cites at the end of every sentence. Look at related articles and those too will not. US geographic articles need not have cites at the end of every sentence. Look at Texas, the Appalachians, or others, really, go look, I urge you. Not every sentence in a body para needs an inline cite. Your judgement of how my edits pass or fail WP:V is completely wrong. I do not dislike the policy, but you do not understand it, you see it in a wrong way, one that you are trying to impose upon others, including me, and apparently people in Northeastern United States. And you're wrong, this completely is a WP:V interpretation dispute. I know that the policy allows body paragraphs to not need inline cites after each sentence, yet you interpret WP:V to mean that every body paragraph does need inline cites at the end of each sentence. Also, please tell me how I overgeneralise or setup false arguments- you are accusing me of things I will not do. In addition, I would appreciate a more drawn-out third opinion that touches on all aspects of this discussion, and I feel that it will benefit me as well as Hoppingalong regardless of the end result.--ɱ 00:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The goal is for every sentence in WP to have an inline citation. Now, in order to get the encyclopedia going, that aspiration is not enforced unless an editor asks for citations. WP contains hundreds of thousands of sentences without citations. That simply means that no editors have yet challenged those sentences. But the WP:BURDEN policy makes it clear that once another editor asks for a citation, the editor who wants to include the material must provide a citation. There is no negotiating. The challenging editor does not have to provide a justification. These are very strong, very basic rules of WP (the only significant exception is for the Lead/Intro section: it can omit inline citations provided that the facts are cited later in the article). No amount of discussion in this DRN case is going to change that rule. My advice to user ɱ is to crack open some hardcopy reference works and start finding citations for the East Coast history material ... that is the best path forward. --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the goal is not to have every sentence with an online quote, for this is a recipe for an unreadable pedantic-appearing article. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia , not a scholarly treatise. For most topics where all the information from a paragraph is from the same obviously reliable source, a single citation is sufficient. (And it need not be inline--we have lately fallen into the habit of using footnote numbers, but other methods of citation (such as the "Harvard" system of parenthetical references followed by a reference list) have always been equally acceptable here and elsewhere--what is meant, is that in some cases they have to be specific to the particular fact. If, for example, someone went to a particular high school and then a college, and the information is from the same reliable biography, it does not need two footnotes.

Any fact challenged or likely to be challenged means any fact reasonably challenged ... ; the word "reasonably" is implied in every WP policy and guideline and practice, on the basis of not being hung up about technicalities (otherwise known as IAR). It is a well-known practice here of people out to destroy an article to ask unreasonably for citations and when they are given, complain they are insufficiently specific, and so gradually remove every sentence until there is nothing left to show notability & the article gets deleted.(There can be many reasons why people might want to do this, the common ones are pure cussedness, prejudice, & the desire that WP not cover a particular topic in detail.) But as Noleander says, normally when there is even a somewhat unreasonable challenge, it is easier to find a reference than argue the matter. When it is really unreasonable, though, I think it is better to consider it as a misinterpretation & to do only what is reasonable. If unreasonable challenges are accepted, the rules tend to drift, & I think that's what we're seeing here.

In the specific case raised here of geography, standard maps are a RS, and a single highway map or travel guide can show the entire position of a highway. Just cite the Times atlas, or something of the sort. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppingalong, I'd like to kindly ask that you respond to the above two comments. Thank you.

Thank you both for your replies. Though in this case, Hoppingalong had challenged every piece of uncited information in the article, and personally removed it. To that, The Transhumanist has said "I visited WP:VER a few years ago to ask what would happen if an editor went around challenging everything on Wikipedia that wasn't cited regardless of how obvious it was, and it was pointed out to me that the person would likely be blocked for being disruptive or trying to make a point." [8]. And this truthfully is close to the current case, the difference being that Hoppingalong has only challenged everything at a couple of articles and not the four plus million on the English wiki.--Hoppingalongɱ 07:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DGG points out that there are different ways to cite. True enough. And if a particular reference covers several sentences, even a paragrpah, great. There is more than one way to pass WP:V, but we should not disregard WP:V. I do not read DGG to say that particular facts do not need to be referenced in some way, though. I still do not know what we are arguing about, though. ɱ's edits had more wrong with them than just not passing WP:V. This abstract argument is fun, but I do not think we are advancing anything. Hoppingalong (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that he convinced you that there are different ways to reference information. Nobody here is disregarding WP:V, just the fact is that not every sentence has to have a reference, and WP:V supports that. We are discussing referencing text in articles, something which you had deemed necessary at all times as inline cites, and now have weakened to deem that referencing text in articles is necessary but can be done in several fashions. In regards to your last statement, we might all accomplish more if you were taking this an ounce more seriously.--ɱ 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

DGG must be editing a different WP than I edit :-) Whenever someone asks for a citation in my WP: there is only one answer: "Okay, I'll go find one". WP:BURDEN is a policy, not a suggestion or guideline. He is correct to point out that if several consecutive sentences share a single cite, the cite can appear at the end of that group of sentences, of course. Returning to this specific DRN case: I think everyone agrees that cites are needed for geographical or historical facts, so it is time to wind-up this DRN case, and have editors go find some source books/maps/etc. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both Noleander and DGG, but would add this refinement. While objections to the lack of sourcing should be reasonable, at the same time we have an obligation to assume good faith and presume that such objections are rooted in a reasonable objection if no reason is stated or if the stated reason is vague or uncertain for some other reason. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor: I would like all parties to take a breath for a moment and contemplate what the edit warring is doing to the article. Please take a moment to look at the article in it's present state, and compare that with this older version of the article. I am sure that everyone has the best intentions, but clearly damage is being done. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content has gone down dramatically and the article is suffering for that. But no edit warring has taken place. Vandals deleted information, users reverted vandal edits, Hoppingalong deleted my edits and others' edits, so he has 'warred' so to speak, yet I have not, as I haven't deleted anyone's contributions. In addition, I am preserving the page in a workspace, with the link posted above. Paragraphs and paragraphs of useful information were lost for years that I took a great deal of time searching for and recovering. We shouldn't have to rewrite the article when we can just re-cite. And if you consider an edit war to take place between two or more people as I do, then it's safe to say that no edit wars have taken place here. So to the involved editors, please listen to the above comment, as it's truthful and a reason why the article should be restored to what is on the sandbox/workpage space, or a similar version. The removals were all because of vandals or because of Hoppingalong being the cop, judge, juror, and executioner by challenging, citing problems, ignoring the article's talk page (discussion is standard procedure in a challenge), and then deleting the information, and all in one big swoop. Yet several of the editors in this discussion seem to at least partially if not fully back Hoppingalong, the person who feels he has right over the article and is so unbridled so as to feel he has the right to arrest, convict, sentence, and execute without any proper proceedings.--ɱ 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SueRangell and DGG are correct: WP:BURDEN should not be used to maliciously destroy valid information. So I thought I'd spend a minute doing what I was asking others to do: add some cites to the article. So I grabbed my atlas and road maps, and jumped in, and right off the bat I was flummoxed. The article is called "East Coast" ... but does that mean the shoreline? Or the dozen states that are on the shoreline? Is Atlanta (250 miles from the shore) in the "East Coast" or not? Is "East Coast" a political designation (a list of states or counties used for census & statistics)? or a geological term? or an oceanographic term? or is it a cultural term ("East coast style", etc)? Obviously, "East Coast" is all of these. But that just reinforces the need for sourcing: what exactly do geologists mean when they say "east coast"? If the US Census Bureau uses the term, do they include Atlanta? Pittsburgh? If a DJ mentions "East Coast rap music" are they including Florida? Non-US residents will be reading this article, and we need to give them hard facts based on sources, not what we, as individuals think the term means. Lots of good information could go into the article ... but starting with sources that define the term is the best path forward. --Noleander (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor - After looking at the current version of the page and the version linked above by SueRangell I would agree that WP:BURDEN has been, perhaps, harshly applied here. I see no reason why the original information cannot be left in with cite tags. In my opinion, this assumes good faith that they will be cited. This has the added bonus of allowing uninvolved editors to come along and cite the content without having to write the article themselves. After they have been uncited and tagged for a reasonable amount of time they can be removed. Both editors in this dispute clearly have differing views regarding sourced material so I think my previous proposal would be a fair compromise. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding back in uncited material for physical features on the coastline (bays, etc) is fine. And maybe even listing cities that are on the coast (NY, Miami, etc). But adding inland cities (like Atlanta or Richmond or Columbia or Orlando) is where WP:OR may get violated unless there is a source. --Noleander (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a though, as a non-US citizen, I always assumed East Coast was more of an area thing (i.e. that whole side of the states) rather than specifically a coastal thing. Perhaps this should be defined before including or omitting certain cities. As it stands, I would still go for reinstating the majority of the content and then having ones that are disputed tagged to be cited (i.e. Atlanta). If they are within, say, two weeks, great! If not, remove them comfortable in the knowledge that those that do believe they should be included had the chance to find citations but either couldn't or didn't bother. I think it's the best solution to this dispute. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction between "coast only" and "area thing" is precisely my point. The sources use the term "east coast" in dozens of different ways. For editors to pick a single definition/usage and put it in the article is WP:OR. For instance: Buffalo, New York is in the coastal state of NY, but it is inland and is actually on the shore of Lake Erie, not the Atlantic ocean ... so is Buffalo in the "East Coast" or not? As for the "two week" try out, that sounds good: WP:BURDEN says that the polite thing to do is ask for cites and wait a bit before removing material. --Noleander (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest then it may be worthwhile raising that concern at a relevant wikiproject to allow discussion to determine some sort of consensus in the matter. Regardless of WP:OR I'd invoke WP:IAR and leave at least some kind of definition in now or at least a clarification of possible definitions to avoid confusion which detriments the article. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. It seems that there are several significant definitions that should be included: political/states; statistics/demographics/census; culture/style/music; geographic/geophysical; and oceanographic/littoral. --Noleander (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of this, it's good thinking, but two weeks might be a bit short of time. For a major article like Elvis Presley, there are more involved editors, more watchers, and more readers, so it'll be edited faster; but for this small article I'd say give it a good amount longer of time.--ɱ 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that some improvements have been made to the article in the past few days: adding citations, creating a section outline, etc. So editors should not revert the article to a prior version. If there is some material from an older version that seems valid & likely to be sourced, it should be copied into the current version. --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it looks like at least one party is happy with this compromise. If Hoppingalong is also willing to abide by this agreement perhaps we can end this dispute amicably to the benefit of the article Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Privilege

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by UseTheCommandLine on 20:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

White privilege (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:White privilege#Dispute over "alleged" and other mitigation language (edit | subject | history | links | "alleged"_and_other_mitigation_language watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Apostle12 maintains that additional mitigating language is needed about the existence (or lack thereof) of white privilege. other editors generally feel this unnecessary, as the article starts with "in critical race theory" indicating a limitation to that academic domain.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, asking for clarification on WT:MOS about WP:ALLEGED

Note: someone also asked for advice on this on the #wikipedia-en IRC channel, and received very little input apart from suggestions that they avoid arbcom, and a suggestion from myself that they should pursue WP:DR, which may have led them here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can help?

provide additional eyes and suggestions for helping to integrate all viewpoints.

Opening comments by Apostle12

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

I may have jumped the gun by attempting some edits before the dispute resolution process really began. If so, I apologize. My attempts were intended to avoid the use of mitigating language ("alleged" and "might" were rejected by other editors) by clarifying that the discussion of "white privilege" is taking place within the context of a clearly defined academic field. The first paragraph of the lede now reads:

Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that non-whites experience. In critical race theory, white privilege may be defined as the "unearned advantages of being white in a racially stratified society", and white privilege is seen as a powerful legacy of racial identity that is often unacknowledged by whites.[1] Most such theories focus on American and European societal conditions, since inequality between whites and non-whites is a long-standing feature in these societies.

I believe this paragraph now conveys clearly that we are describing a way of looking at things rather than defining an objective reality. For me this solves the problem, because it allows the theoretical discussion to proceed without proclaiming the universal accuracy of a certain perspective.

I made some other changes to the language of the lede. I think sticking with "non-whites" instead of using "non-whites" and "people of color" alternately, is a better choice for this article. Many people, especially latinos who consider themselves culturally white yet whose skin color is more pigmented than most whites, bridle at the "people of color" descriptor. Some of those whose skin is a lighter tone feel that use of the term "people of color" creates a racial amalgum that is artificial given the vast and varied peoples included under the "people of color" umbrella: blacks, latinos, asians, native americans, east asians, and so on. Anyway probably best to keep it simple. Apostle12 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Malik Shabazz

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

Opening comments by groupuscule

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

I suggested on the talk page that the existence of "white privilege" was not controversial, and supported by apparently overwhelming academic consensus—evidence for which came from a Google Scholar search. One important point is that white privilege doesn't have to be an overall accounting of whether it's "better" or "easier" to be one race or another, everywhere. "White privilege" is advantages that a person gets for their "white" skin. No "alleged" about it—that's the definition. The specifics of what those advantages are may be more controversial. groupuscule (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Darkfrog24

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

I made exactly one comment in this discussion. I'll summarize it here.

This is the text in question as it currently stands in the article:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color experience.

Apostle12 wants to add the word "alleged" before "advantages" and again before "disadvantages." Others say that this would be improper or violate WP:ALLEGE.

I don't think that "alleged" would be used improperly. I do believe that some mitigating language would be best. However, there are plenty of other words that we could use that don't have connotations of criminality or untrustworthiness the way "alleged" does.

The core of the matter is that, unlike, say, the theory of evolution, white privilege isn't backed by hordes of specific studies. There are many ways of explaining the phenomena with which the concept of white privilege is consistent. There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot, and there are things about it that are purely hypothetical, like whether being white itself is what gets people more housing options (which can also be explained by socioeconomic differences).

In its current state, the lead presupposes that the advantages and disadvantages of whites and nonwhites, respectively, are all real and proven. It might be best to say something like "possible advantages" or "might or do," as follows:

In critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people may or do accrue from society as on the disadvantages that people of color may or do experience.

"May or do" seems a bit awkward but it acknowledges that white privilege covers both proven and as yet unproven inequalities. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Privilege discussion

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am opening this up for discussion. (One editor has not commented yet, so we are proceeding without him.)

Let me start with a couple of questions; Roughly how many editors support each side of this debate? (being in the minority doesn't make you wrong, but it is something we consider if there are no policy-based reasons to choose. See WP:CONSENSUS.) Are there any compromises that both sides might be willing to accept? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sides, exactly?

I was more or less recruited from WT:MoS, where I'm a regular. I stepped in, looked around and gave my two cents. I did the same here when asked. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One statement above caught my eye:

"There are things about it that are certainly true, like the fact that a black individual can have his or her accomplishments (like getting into a good school) written off as the product of race-based affirmative action and a white individual by definition cannot..."

I think there is a problem with assigning the word "true" to such statements (on either side). One could just as easily say that race-based affirmative action is itself an example of black privilege. The problem is how to strike the right balance in the article. Just tacking on "alleged" is clunky and really doesn't show the subtlety of the issue. We need to come up with neutral and encyclopedic language that doesn't sound like a recruiting poster for the Aryan Nation or the Black Panthers. I am open to suggestions here. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Uninvolved Editor/DRN Volunteer - I think I understand the concern from both sides, and I wanted to make a suggestion for a rewrite of a sentence in question. "Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses as much on the advantages that white people accrue from their position in society as on the societal disadvantages that non-whites experience." Could be written as: "Within the academic field of critical race theory, white privilege is a way of conceptualizing racial inequalities that focuses on perceived advantages and disadvantages, based on race, accrued from their position in society." Solely a recommendation, and maybe to lead people in the right direction. I feel it would be less clunky to find a way to point out that the (dis)advantages are perceived -- there may be a better word to be used, but I feel a neutral term that implies that some (dis)advantages may be completely real, while others may not be. Hope this was helpful in any way! Acronin3 (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game of thrones tv series page

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Brickcity55 on 19:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Game of Thrones (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Brickcity55 (talk · contribs)
sandstein (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In short, The user sandstein keeps trying to remove country of origin out of the lead. I, however, think it should be there as it keeps with the consistency of other popular tv shows and frankly, there is absolutely no reason for it not to be. Game of thrones should be labeled an American series in the introduction. Sandstein asked for a third opinion and we were given one, but no decisions have still been made. Sandstein then took it upon himself to start changing the disputed content without any type of discussion at all. I fear he may be starting an edit war

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

3rd opinion, I've also asked for a vote and have tried discussing this on the talk page. Sandstein doesn't have any reasons for his negative actions but he keeps doing it

How do you think we can help?

I want many other editors to weigh in on this issue. This isn't about the origin if the show, but the confusing choice by sandstein to want to remove it from the lead because he doesn't agree with it and it is in almost every other popular shows and movies.

Opening comments by Sandstein

The article this relates to is Game of Thrones (TV series)‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a minor content disagreement about whether the lead sentence should describe the series as an "American television series" (Brickcity55's preference, for consistency with other articles), a "British/American television series" (an IP editor's preference, probably because many UK people are involved), or whether it should mention no particular nationality at the outset (the preference expressed by myself and I think two other people, because the lead says a few words later that the series was made by an US channel). Brickcity55 and the IP editor were recently blocked for edit-warring about this, and I solicited the opinion of others via WP:3O. I don't quite see the point of bringing this here, but I suggest that any who have an opinion about the content issue express it on the article talk page. Sandstein 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 3O editor

I am the editor that responded to the 3O request. I am sure that both Sandstien and Brickcity55 have the best of intentions, but I think this is a pretty straightforward issue. My opinions are on the talk page. I humbly ask both editors to simply take a three day break from this article and do other things. I am sure that when you return things will be more in perspective for each of you. You both seem like reasonable people to me. --Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 23:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game of thrones tv series page discussion

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

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I do not believe that there is any clear policy-based answer here between the "American" and "nothing" versions. (Anyone asserting the "American/British" version, however, needs a reliable source for that assertion; there are plenty such sources out there supporting the fact that it was made for a U.S. network, to say that it has a British origin would require sourcing.) Consistency does not favor the American version; unless there is a policy or guideline requiring consistency between articles, each article stands on its own and what's done in one article has no control over what's done in another article. That's not to say that consistency is not a good thing: it just means that no editor can insist on it without support from policy/guidelines. I don't know what's done in other articles, but I think that the "American ... U.S. channel" construction is redundant and unnecessary, so I favor the "nothing" version. Oh, and by the way, one editor keeps referring to a "vote." Things are not decided by votes at Wikipedia, but by consensus which is determined by more than just counting hands. Finally, I would note to Brickcity55 that since he introduced the "American" version, that the No consensus provision of the consensus policy says that since another editor has objected to it, that it must be removed unless consensus can be established to keep it. It would appear at this point that what opinion there is seems to be against its inclusion rather than being in favor of it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote, consensus whatever you want the call it. The point is for more people to get involved in the discussion so that a decision can be made in a respectful manner and not a bullied one. Putting American in the title would not be redundant and at any case a sentence could be rearranged, but once again, stating that it is redundant is an absolute stretch. If Sandstein doesnt want it there because of sentence structure then I'll change the sentence, that is what editors are for. But alas, there is no reason it shouldn't be there other than the fact that sandstein doesn't want it there. Unfortunately, that is not a good excuse. The information is important to the identity of the show and its development/background. Country of origin has been a part of wp articles since the beginning of wp. Why all the fuss now? What is the confusion coming from? I'm sorry but sentence structure is bit laughable considering how wp works.--Brickcity55 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor - I agree with Sandstein and Transporterman that the top two choices are "American" or nothing. American/British does not appear to be sensible nor supported by sources. I looked at 12 30 random articles on TV shows, including shows from France, US, Germany, UK, and Australian and every single one of them includes the nation-of-origin in the first sentence. Since that pattern represents the consensus of a large number of WP editors of a long span of time, I think this article should follow suit. Arguing that this one article - out of 100s (?) of WP television articles - should exclude the nation seems a bit perverse. Granted the "... US channel" following soon thereafter is a bit redundant, but that is easily fixed by moving the "US channel" to a later paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment - all articles of television series, as far as I can find, include the nation of origin in their opening. Including "American" is accurate, the dispute being an unable to discern the difference between an American originated production and a casting/filming location. There are numerous examples of films from countries that aren't even filmed in the country of their origin or even have local casts but the filming is still considered that countries film - not the film of the cast or the location. The American/British appendium would be accurate if this was a joint venture between HBO and BBC (as Rome (TV series) was before it), and while early on in the filming of Game of Thrones this was the idea the BBC pulled their support before an episode was ever filled. Including in the opening that it is an American television series should stand. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Lid: You may know this already, but just in case you do not, the lede begins, "an American medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO". The question, at least once the British thing is out of the running (and I think it is at this point), is whether it needs both the "American" and the "U.S.". The "U.S." was there before the "an American" was added by Brickcity55. Just wanted to make sure we were all singing from the same songbook. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment - The series was created specifically for US television so I am of the opinion that calling it 'American' as opposed to 'British/American' is the correct procedure in this case. Regarding the wording of the first sentence, that's a different matter completely but I think having 'american' and 'U.S. channel' is appropriate as many may not be familiar with HBO and specifiying it is good in this case. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really thought of this until I read what I posted just above, but it also seems to me that "an American medieval fantasy" sounds as if this was a fantasy set in the Americas or involving Americans during the medieval period. That interpretation might seem so improbable as to be not worth considering, but we are dealing with fantasy and, indeed, that is exactly, if it had been set a hundred years earlier, what the 1632 series would have been: an American medieval fantasy. Just a thought. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but considering that the medieval period is, first of a period in European history, it's either not a 'medieval fantasy' at all since it is set in a different universe or it's 'medieval style'. Technically. But that is getting pedantic so we shall leave that ol' chestnut well alone. Additionally, medieval fantasy is linked so readers can click to alleviate any confusion. If someone wants to rewrite the intro so 'American' and 'medieval' don't follow each other they can go ahead but since this dispute is about including 'American' rather than 'British/American' or nothing we're getting a bit off topic. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote these comments on the talk page but they are more appropiate here: There is no confusion. The show is produced by hbo so the issue is black and white. Where a show or movie is filmed does not impact the country of origin of a show. Filming locations change, so does the origin change with it? No. Casting changes. Does this change origin? No. If two seasons from now, the cast is majority Irish and the show is filmed in Australia, would the show the be Irish-Australian? No. The show is American created, American produced, and American controlled. In short, it is American. I don't understand this fearful attitude ( which apparently is only for this article and not the hundreds of others) when it comes to putting country of origin in the lead. As far as concern about redundancy, let us remember-- this is wikipedia. As editors surely we can allow ourselves to change sentence structure and move "U.S channel" further down in the paragraphs. The medieval fantasy is not an issue at all as described by Cabe above. --Brickcity55 (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a few options for opening sentence, in no particular order:

... an American medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO.
... an American fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO. [mention medieval later]
... a medieval fantasy television series created for the U.S. channel HBO. [mention American later]
... an American medieval fantasy television series created for HBO. [mention US channel later]
... an American medieval fantasy television series. [mention medieval & HBO & US channel later]
... an American television series created for HBO. [mention medieval & US channel later]

Just tossing out some ideas. To me, #1, #4 and #5 seem superior. --Noleander (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that important, but I feel that labeling the series "American" in the lead based only on the production's origin borders on original research, given that the locations, much of the crew and almost all of the cast are European. What's the sourcing situation? Procedurally, it might be significant to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brickcity55 has established that Brickcity55 has created multiple accounts and has used two of them to participate in the discussion. Sandstein 09:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As previous users have pointed out, the nationality of the cast and crew has little to do with the nationality of the production. The show is produced by HBO (an american channel) who are owned by Time Warner (an American company) making it an American production. The main issue in this dispute in this definition of the production. Sourcing that it is produced by HBO would be enough to have "American" in the lead. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's made and paid for by an American company, yes, but it's not self-evident to me that this means that it can be labeled "an American series" in shorthand. That conclusion strikes me as original research. What does "American" actually mean in this context? By convention, we so label people according to their nationality, and corporations according to where they are incorporated, but creative works aren't persons and don't have a nationality. Curiously, the practice of assigning a "nationality" to works appears limited to films and TV series; I can't recall articles about "an American novel" or "a French painting". "American-produced" would be correct (if awkward), but "American", as though the series were a person, strikes me as odd. That's something we could have a WP:MOS discussion about. Sandstein 13:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it works for TV shows, but films nationality can be determined by the nationality of those involved. So Dredd is British because it has a Briths director, writer, producers and some cast and crew, but also South African according to the credits because it was filmed there, but not Indian or AMerican, which is where the funding came from in part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And isn't it co-produced by an Irish company? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindfull of WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you feel it is worth having a discussion in WP:MOS that's another matter. For now, the defacto standard for TV shows and movies appears to be to include the nationality of the production company so I'd be inclined to include it for now until a MOS discussion has flushed out a general concensus.

In regards to your point of corporations being assigned where they are incorporated, GM are an American car maker and, thus, their products are, by definition, American. It doesn't matter if the designer of a car is German, the factory workers are mexican, canadian etc. It's still an American car, it's not original research to say this. Likewise Game of Thrones is a product of the US company Time Warner. A creative work produced commercially is still a product. Thus I would postulate that Game of Thrones is an American TV show. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to suggest this compromise: That the current "American ... U.S." formulation be left in place, this DRN thread be closed, and everyone troop over to MOS to try to come to a generalized solution. I'm a U.S. lawyer and have to say that once we get into the issue of nationality of a piece of property such as this, the issue can get bigger the more that you chew on it. If you take a look at the IMDB production page for this series it lists five different production companies. Just to avoid fighting over the details here at Game of Thrones, let's instead take an imaginary series "Fozzlewozzle" based on a book by Joe Brown, a Canadian. US-incorporated channel OBH acquires the TV rights to the work from Brown, but because OBH doesn't actually engage in the filmmaking business through its own employees, contracts with an independent production company Parapet Productions to create the series. Parapet is incorporated in the Bahamas, but has its actual office in London. As part of its contract with OBH, Parapet gets a fee but also obtains a 10% interest in the film. Sources do not make it clear whether that 10% is an equity interest (the film is 90% owned by OBH and 10% owned by Parapet) or a royalty interest (Parapet gets 10% of the net or gross earnings). In truth and in fact, Parapet is really just a producer, not a filmmaker, so it "hires" a French-incorporated filmmaking company to do the actual filming. The film is shot entirely in New Zealand using an international cast and crew. Once the film is in the can and ready for display, OBH decides at the last minute that the series just isn't right for the U.S. or U.K. market and shows it in South Africa through its South Africa subsidiary. What's the nationality of this series? Just in the first step: American OBH may own the rights (or maybe only 90% of them, who knows), but not one employee of OBH ever laid a hand on a camera or built a set. Does the fact that Parapet owns either 10% of the film or 10% of the profits make this a American/Bahamian film? Or, if so, is it a American/UK film, since the only real connection Parapet has with the Bahamas is a piece of paper filed in an government office there? Or is it a — pick one — Bahamian or UK film since HBO is really just the rights holder? Or is it a French film since Parapet didn't do any of the actual filming. Does it depend on who makes the creative decisions? What if part of Brown's licensing deal with OBH was that he gets to participate in the creative decisions? Or is it a South African series, since it was shown there first or because OBH's ownership in the series was sold (or was it just licensed?) to OBH's South African subsidiary. In the real world — and I speak from experience — it may be virtually impossible to know the exact legal relationships between the parties involved in bringing the book to the screen due to contractual arrangements which are never made public. In the case of Game of Thrones, for example, who are the four producers listed at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0944947/companycredits in addition to HBO? Were David Benioff and D. B. Weiss hired on as employees of HBO, or were they contractors? If they were the latter, did they just receive a fee or a piece of the action? For that matter, was it really them, individually or was it corporations or other legal entities of which they were owners or executives? I don't have a clue to either the right answers as to Fozzlewozzle or as to Game of Thrones, but what I strongly suspect is that the identification of a nationality with a movie, TV series, or other entertainment product is more of a generally accepted convention — if that — than it is a precise, legal analysis and, because of that, reliable sources can conflict without possibility of any clear reconciliation. If my suspicion is correct, then there are two questions which ought to be resolved: First, whether Wikipedia should include national appellations, even if there reliable sources to support them and, second, how are they to be analyzed. As can be seen with Fozzlewozzle, there can be as many answers to that as there are people who look at the issue and resolving that kind of this is the proper focus of policy-making. For that reason, this discussion should end and it ought to go to a discussion at MOS (not, before someone suggests it, at a Wiki-project, due to the effect of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement that this is the correct way forward. Do the original instigators of this dispute also agree to this fair compromise? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a broader MOS discussion would be helpful to determine generally when and how to label creative works with a nationality in the lead sentence, especially in situations where the national association is not evident. What would be the appropriate MOS talk subpage? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? (Brickcity55 probably won't be able to reply soon, as they've been blocked for socking.) Sandstein 18:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fardeen Khan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Chilum aw charrs on 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Fardeen Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Chilum aw charrs (talk · contribs)
~~Milescoast.wiki~~ (Blocked User)
Neelkamala (talk · contribs)
~~84.204.41.210~~ (Blocked User)
2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9 (talk · contribs)
190.145.26.2 (talk · contribs)
39.47.254.208 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For many years the article contained information about Fardeen Khan being of Afghan (Pathan) origin through his father and grandfather, but very recently a POV-pusher came along with anon IPs and began washing off the Afghan information plus categories. Everytime I readd the info the disruptive person(s) reverts my edit. I even improved my sources by citing Encyclopædia Britannica, The New York Times, The Times of India, Mid Day, Pajhwok Afghan News and many others. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None

How do you think we can help?

I don't know

Opening comments by Neelkamala

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

Opening comments by 2001:558:6045:A0:391F:B005:179D:8DD9

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

Opening comments by 190.145.26.2

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

Opening comments by 39.47.254.208

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

Fardeen Khan discussion

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

From reading the discussion on the talk page. It seems that there is some confusion regarding heritage and nationality. As far as I understand the heritage goes (subject - born in india) - (subject father - born in india) - (subject grandfather - born in afghanistan). Would this be a correct summary of his lineage regarding the Afghan heritage? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 11:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto and Wikileaks

– New discussion.

Filed by Jytdog on 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Monsanto#guardian ref and democracynow ref we wikileaks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Jytdog (talk · contribs)
semitransgenic (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Relevant article section is Monsanto#Continental_Europe. The issue here is about Wikileak cables discussing efforts by the Government of Spain and Monsanto to get help from the US government to support the Spanish Government's pro-GMO position. A user, Semitransgenic, introduced an article from the Guardian, the author of which has several POV statements, which semitransgenic wishes to quote. The particular quote is that the US was "working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto." This is POV and false statement. I've tried to simply delete the quote and replace it with the neutral and more accurate statement "Monsanto's Director for Biotechnology for Spain and Portugal and the Spanish Secretary of State for the Environment Josep Puxeu requested that the US government support Spain on the matter" Semitransgenic will not take out the POV quote. I initially did suggest getting rid of the Guardian article altogether as there are more NPOV and reliable sources. However Semitranagenic really wants to keep it so I yielded on that as there is other acceptable content in the article. But I feel the quote needs to go under the idea that "Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y"." as stated in the reliable sources noticeboard. So I would like help. Thanks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Have talked extensively on Talk. Have proposed various other wordings, all of which have been rejected.

How do you think we can help?

Please review and judge if the quote is POV or not. Thank you.

Opening comments by semitransgenic

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

This is a matter of Jytog's POV over that of WP:RS sources.

We have two reliable sources [20][21], both of which adhere to WP:RS, and both of which unequivocally state: "U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto."

He dismissed a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article ("the new source does not support the quote "US diplomats in Europe were working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto") when it very clearly states: "Other cables show U.S. diplomats working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto joined forces with Spain to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws."

Furthermore, Jytog maintains that an article written by a sub-editor (since 1995) of The Guardian newspaper is not suitable Wikipedia content and he believes it fails WP:NPOV.

There has been an extended discussion on this matter, where multiple editors [22][23][24][25] offered opinions, all of which were subjected to WP:IDHT by Jytog.

Instead, he has chosen to edit war [26][27][28][29] on the content, so that a statement, as quoted, by both reliable sources, would reflect not what it actually says, but instead state what Jytog wants it to say.

Consensus does not exist for Jytog's POV. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments by Jytdog

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

Monsanto and Wikileaks discussion

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

White Terror (Russia)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cwmacdougall on 23:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

White Terror (Russia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

‎InformedContent (talk · contribs)
Cwmacdougall (talk · contribs)
EverlastingGaze (talk · contribs)
75.51.167.249 (talk · contribs) (same as EverlastingGaze?)
‎Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) (same as EverlastingGaze?)

Dispute overview

EverlastingGaze under at least two identities is trying to write crude Bolshevik propaganda and refuses even the most modest amendments to "his" precious article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I appealed three times to the NPOV page and several times on the Russia Group Talk page, to no effect.

How do you think we can help?

EverlastingGaze needs to be told firmly that he does not own the White Terror article and to edit from a NPOV and to accept incremental improvements to the page. Alternatively, best to delete all and start fresh.

Opening comments by ‎InformedContent

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

Opening comments by Cwmacdougall

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

Opening comments by EverlastingGaze

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

Opening comments by 75.51.167.249 (same as EverlastingGaze?)

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

Opening comments by ‎Darkness Shines (same as EverlastingGaze?)

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

White Terror discussion

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

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:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by UrbanVillager on 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Talk:Boris Malagurski (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Talk:The Weight of Chains (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

The two articles in question have been the source of a dispute for the past few months, as there are a few Wikipedia editors who seem to have personal or ideological issues with Boris Malagurski and his film The Weight of Chains, and are trying to add sources that are either blogs banned from Wikipedia, other self-published blogs and unreliable websites that use slander and lies, or unchecked facts at best, in violation of WP:SOURCE even YouTube videos in violation of WP:COPYEDIT.

Whenever I called for respect of Wikipedia guidelines, many of them attacked me personally and even claimed that I'm Boris Malagurski or paid by him. This is starting to get very frustrating, because they keep repeating the same points over and over again, completely ignoring my arguments that their sources are not reliable enough for Wikipedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to explain that self-published blogs are not accepted here, that YouTube videos of news broadcasts posted on YouTube by a user other than the official broadcaster is in violation on WP:YOUTUBE, that a film is produced by a production company and not every individual or organization that donates money towards the production of the film, that E-novine is a self-published online blog site presenting itself as a news source, that copy/pastes blog posts from the web.

How do you think we can help?

I have no interest in there not being any criticism of the topics that are dealt with in the articles, but I only support criticism that is available via reliable sources. I'm curious if you think srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com, bosniangenocide.wordpress.com, zijadburgic.com, e-novine.com (which copy/pasted a blog post about this topic from zijadburgic.com), politicsrespun.org, are verifiable enough to be the core critique of these topics, and what you'd suggest to end this dispute.

Opening comments by PRODUCER

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

Opening comments by Opbeith

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

Opening comments by Bobrayner

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

Opening comments by WhiteWriter

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

Opening comments by Psychonaut

I'm not directly involved in this dispute as I've edited neither article nor their respective talk pages. My participation has been limited to advising User:UrbanVillager on his talk page to disengage from another editor whose objections I believed to be disingenuous and unsupported by policy, and to investigating some COI and copyright issues at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Boris Malagurski. I have never stated my opinions on the text of the articles in dispute, nor has anyone even asked me what those may be.

Regarding the sourcing issues, I can only repeat what I posted at WP:COIN: It's a settled matter on English Wikipedia that User:Bosniak's Srebrenica Genocide Blog is not a reliable source. Bosniak was banned in part for spamming links to it in Wikipedia articles, and it's been on the spam blacklist for some time now. Other blogs aren't usually considered reliable sources according to our policies. Whether or not the E-novine article can be used as a source is not at all clear-cut; in general it seems that the site may be a reliable source, but in this particular case it simply reproduced a blog post, so there are arguments both for and against its inclusion here. Indeed, UrbanVillager and User:Joy both advanced such arguments on the article talk pages. As this is a general issue it would be helpful if the discussion could be continued with participation of disinterested parties at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains discussion

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

Though I'm a regular volunteer here at DRN, I'm not "taking" this listing, but am only dropping in to note that the E-novine source mentioned above is now the subject of an inquiry at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and that aspect of this request ought to probably be on hold until that discussion is resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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