Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| 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 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.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Nivkh alphabets | Closed | Modun (t) | 30 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Kwamikagami (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
| Wudu | Closed | Nasserb786 (t) | 21 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
| 15.ai | In Progress | Ltbdl (t) | 11 days, 9 hours | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 41 minutes | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 41 minutes |
| Tuner (radio) | In Progress | Andrevan (t) | 7 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | Kvng (t) | 10 hours |
| Jessica Nabongo | Closed | Log6849129 (t) | 2 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
| Wolf | New | Nagging Prawn (t) | 2 days, 15 hours | None | n/a | Moxy (t) | 14 hours |
| USA | Closed | 2806:2F0:A700:F275:7C5E:A0B8:369A:3A72 (t) | 2 days, 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 9 hours |
| Barb horse | Closed | TahaKahi (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 2 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 00:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Rijeka City_Council
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | One editor has not responded within 48 hours. Discussion here is voluntary. Resolve any content issues on the article talk page, or by a Request for Comments. Take conduct issues to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Me and another user got into a discussion if there should be labels "government" and "opposition" in the infobox of Rijeka City Council and, if yes, how should it be done. To me, the best examples, at least it seems to me are, to quote: "(Budapest, Moscow, New York, London and Buenos Aires and Los Angeles). All of them list simply "political groups" without distinction to government or opposition (only on "majority" vs. "minority" of seats in case of New York)." The other user insists to put "government" for the parties supporting mayor and "opposition" for those that are against him, but have majority. As the city newspaper refers to the situation as a divided government ("kohabitacija"): [1], I think we should leave out "government" and "opposition" tags. Our discussion can be found on the talk page for more information. He accused me twice for vandalism and once that my edits are not sane: [2] and accused me for "disruptive editing": [3] Also, he called me "politically motivated" and "frustrated because I was right about 2*1komunikacije and now you are going on a spree of edits on this article" (the second is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:RSN, that hasn't yet brought any solution, so nobody is proven to be right, yet). In addition, he reverts my removal of outdated (2013-2017) picture that represents the distribution of seats ([4]). Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to talk with him and find compromise with the solution of removing all the labels "opposition/government" or adding something like "executive government/council majority" and tried to explain differences in Croatian end English language for the word "government", but th conclusion was to bring the third party (and, as I don't know anybody suitable, I decided to bring it here). How do you think we can help? You can tell us which solution to use and decide if we should remove the outdated picture of seat redistribution. Summary of dispute by TuvixerFirst, I want to say that this has gone beyond a dispute over a polling agency [5] and beyond this dispute in question. User StjepanHR is using ad hominem attacks and I feel threatened by his remarks.
In city of Rijeka there are direct elections with a possible second round, for mayor of the city. Mayor is the holder of the executive power. It is uncommon but not unheard of that the opposition have the majority in the city council, and that the government (political parties supporting the mayor) are the minority. The government in the city of Rijeka, by law, is the mayor and those who support him. It can't be more clear than this. --Tuvixer (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Talk:Rijeka City_Council discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I simply want to discuss this issue a little more and then, if still necessary, ask for a Third Opinion. Regards, StjepanHR (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderatorI will be acting as the moderator. I will comment that there seems to have been a misunderstanding about a Third Opinion. A Third Opinion is non-binding, and is not used after other forms of dispute resolution. In any case, please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issue or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editorsWhat I would like is for the article to follow what seems to be the generally used form for listing political groups in sub-sovereign state entities (and that would be either "majority and minority" or no label at all). I have listed several examples in my initial statement, but we can use the US states for reference (about 80% of them have "majority vs minority"). For example, the New York state has similar situation to Rijeka, with the governor being from the different party than the majority in the Senate. Another good example would be Alaska Senate, since they have both "majority caucus", "minority caucus" and "no caucus", and the similar situation would be in Rijeka, with 21 members of "majority", 15 members of "minority supporting the mayor" and one member who was absent from the vote, despite belonging to a group that would formally be the "majority". The other reason is that the widely used Croatian word with similar meaning to "government" ("vlada") is almost never used for city (or county) administration. The third one is that, if we leave out "majority" and "minority", a Wikipedia visitor less knowledgeable about situation in Rijeka might wrongly assume that there is no formed majority in the council and that would be a reason why I would prefer "majority and minority" vs. simple listing of political groups without other labels, despite both being commonly used on Wikipedia (although I would accept simple listing of political groups as a valid compromise). StjepanHR (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderatorWill each editor please state, within 12 hours, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issue or issues are? If a statement has already been made, it is not necessary to make a new statement. Second statements by editors
|
Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- DeadEyeSmile (talk · contribs)
- Binksternet (talk · contribs)
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
- Jack Upland (talk · contribs)
- 159.246.20.2 (talk · contribs)
- Stickee (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is a statement of fact in the Wikipedia article but the source that it links to is an opinion piece. (Please search for "This is my argument:" on the talk page for full details of my point.) I have debated with Binksternet over the last couple of weeks about this issue and he has been unable to refute me. I went ahead and made the change today and immediately it was reverted by Volunteer Marek, who is otherwise active on the talk page but has not participated in the debate before now. I would appreciate some guidance in the best way to proceed here.
- Since Binksternet has mischaracterized my argument, I will paste it here from the Talk page:
- This is my argument:
- The article makes this statement of fact: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice." It then links to the Teen Vogue article, an opinion piece, as a source for this statement. A statement of fact must be supported by facts, not opinions. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Debated the point extensively for more than a week on the talk page, waited for any other interested party to join in with the debate, waited for 24 hours after asking Binksternet to refute my point again.
How do you think we can help?
It seems like a pretty straightforward issue to me but it is clouded because it is about a politically contentious figure. I think someone uninvolved in the politics of it needs to look at the argument and advise from a Wikipedia POV. Is it OK to support a statement of fact with a source that is an opinion? From what I have researched the answer is no.
Summary of dispute by Binksternet
I see DeadEyeSmile trying to remove some text that he clearly does not like and does not want in the encyclopedia. This approach is a violation of WP:NPOV. And when he is foiled in his repeated attempts to remove the text, DeadEyeSmile commits the false equivalence fallacy, adding more text to tell the reader that Trump's whataboutism is just as prominent as Chomsky's notional whataboutism.[9] However, only one observer – Terry Glavin – accused Chomsky of whataboutism, and he did so by misrepresenting Chomsky's speech, which contains a perfectly fine assessment of world politics, and embraces further debate ("Glad to go beyond in discussion and don’t hesitate to bring up other questions.") True Soviet-style whataboutism aims to derail debate, which is what Trump does regularly, as described by many observers, in many publications.
Among the multiple sources saying Trump employs the whataboutism tactic is a piece written by columnist Lauren Duca titled "Trump’s Treatment of the Susan Rice Story Is Classic 'Whataboutism'". Duca compares Trump's diversionary tactics with Soviet whataboutism, saying "Trump’s tactic of shifting focus to left-wing figures like Rice and Clinton can be best understood through a Soviet Union propaganda technique known as 'whataboutism.'" I find the Duca piece to be a clear-headed description of the issue. What about this piece is unreliable? It's opinion, of course, being an op-ed column, but its facts are not in question. Articles about political topics frequently have opinion pieces used for the facts they contain, and for the analysis and comparisons made. Duca's piece was written for Teen Vogue, but that does not disqualify it as unreliable. Duca is known for her strong statements about the toxic behaviors of the Trump administration, for which she has recieved online harassment by political opponents, primarily male, so much so that Twitter shut down Martin Shkreli's account because of his harassment of her. Perhaps some people here don't like Duca's political views, or wish to reduce her in importance by removing her work from Wikipedia. I think a smart woman writer and a sharply accurate political piece are perfectly reliable sources for us to use.
Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek
Summary of dispute by Jack Upland
There is a long history in this article of using opinionated sources to try to score political points. The Teen Vogue article is clearly a highly opinionated source. There is also an issue of circular sourcing. When discussing "whataboutism", the Teen Vogue article links to an NPR article which links to the And you are lynching Negroes, which links back to Whataboutism. As I've argued before, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 159.246.20.2
Summary of dispute by Stickee
Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece discussion
- Volunteer note - The list of editors does not include all of the editors who have discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have just noticed that Binksternet has reverted another change I have made to the page which has nothing to do with this situation. I worked with another editor Stickee to come up with a properly sourced example of whataboutism by Noam Chomsky (See talk page "Noam Chomsky Example" section) and Binksternet has taken it upon himself to declare unilaterally that the examples must only be about Donald Trump and that Noam Chomsky's whataboutism is not to be included in the article. This is despite the fact that others have suggested in the page history that more examples be included. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - The other editors have been notified. I will comment that the article, Whataboutism, is not about a neologism. The term Whataboutism has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, and the Cold War ended in either 1989 or 1991, depending on what milestone you use, but, in any case, the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age. I will also remind the editors that ArbCom discretionary sanctions apply under the American politics ruling. Therefore, although moderated discussion here is voluntary, resolving a content dispute by content resolution techniques is an excellent way to avoid having conduct issues dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Awaiting statements by the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I will be acting as the moderator for this discussion. Please read and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that the area of disagreement is the section of the article concerning the use of the term Whataboutism with respect to Donald Trump's replies to criticisms of his administration, and in particular to discussion of a column in Teen Vogue. I will offer my own view that sourcing a statement about a column in Teen Vogue to Teen Vogue is appropriate, because the article is about the term and the technique. State your concerns concisely. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors
I was not a party in prior discussions about this article but I noticed this DR/N entry and would like to participate. Three initial remarks:
- The moderator stated that "whataboutism" cannot be considered a neologism because it "has been used with regard to Soviet dismissal of American claims of human rights violations in the Soviet Union since the Cold War, […so that…] the term is of much more than a quarter of a century age." This sounds incorrect. I could not find any use of this term in the 20th century as indexed by Google Books: [10]. @Robert McClenon: Can you point us to any sources demonstrating use of this term prior to the Economist editorial of 2008?
- (Copied from my talk page comment) The first sentence:
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world.
is false on its face. Whataboutism is an element of rhetoric that has been used by every politician and every nation for millennia (and even, according to the NPR source first cited, by schoolchildren!
). Apparently an Economist journalist in 2008 wrote that it was a "typical" tactic of the Soviet Union vs the United States; this may well be the case but it's also a "typical" tactic of China vs. Japan, France vs. Germany, Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Iran, and pretty much every pair of nations who ever waged a hot or cold war against each other. A more correct first sentence would be: Whataboutism is a neologism coined by The Economist journalist Edward Lucas in 2008 in reference to the rhetorical technique of pointing out similar misdeeds in your opponent's behaviour compared to what they accuse you of, hoping to focus on their hypocrisy instead of the matter at hand.
- I removed the "Soviet Union" sidebar from this article and was reverted by Sagecandor. In the ensuing talk page discussion, I laid out my argument this way:
The sidebar about the Soviet Union says nothing about this phenomenon, even though it includes Soviet propaganda. As it stands, displaying this sidebar makes no sense in this article. The journalist coined the term almost 17 years after the Soviet Union was dissolved, in a bid to shame Russia; why not include a Russia sidebar then? or a journalism sidebar? or an international relations sidebar? or a politics sidebar? or a fallacies sidebar? or a rhetoric sidebar? or a philosophy sidebar?
- Two other editors (Jack Upland and PackMecEng) agreed that this sidebar was undue, while Sagecandor repeated that it should be here because the article "is soviet". I do not want to edit war over this but the current balance of discussion looks to be against this sidebar, and nobody has credibly refuted my rationale to remove it. Can the moderator give us some guidance?
- I will add that our own article Propaganda in the Soviet Union, which is well-developed, says nothing about "whataboutism" and does not even mention this technique by another name in its section about Soviet propaganda abroad.
Thanks for your consideration of my input. — JFG talk 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with these comments. I simply don't understand the moderator's comments about "whataboutism" not being a neologism. The question of when the Cold War ended doesn't seem at all relevant. The support for this article in its current form seems completely irrational. Editors seem to be responding based on their opposition to the USSR, Putin, or Trump. Many people would oppose at least one of those three, but that's not a valid basis for an article. I would like to see rational arguments, rather than assertions, bizarre reasoning, and threats.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
I concede that the term "whataboutism", while used with respect to the Soviet Union, may be of recent origin. The more common term for the Soviet argument may have been And you are lynching Negroes. However, if the term was used in 2008 by a reliable source, the policy against neologisms does not apply. The complaints about the article seem to be all over the place. Will each editor please state in one or two paragraphs what they think should be done to improve the article? (Making the article into a stub that refers to other articles is a valid suggestion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
The J. Geils Band discography
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | None of the parties are interested. Please see WP:DR for alternatives. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview @Piriczki: is saying that the footnote on J. Geils Band discography should say "104 on the Bubbling Under" because the actual chart said so, even though WP:USCHARTS says not to use 1xx for Bubbling Under peaks. Even though the chart he linked here says "104" for the Bubbling Under peak, this is patently wrong because there is no such position. "104" means "4 on Bubbling Under". Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have shown them WP:USCHARTS which says not to use 1xx for bubbling under How do you think we can help? Elucidate them on policies and guidelines regarding charts Summary of dispute by PiriczkiI cited the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart as published in the March 9, 1974 edition of Billboard magazine here which shows the J. Geils Band single "Did You No Wrong" peaked at No. 104. To say otherwise violates Wikipedia policy on original research based on WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTHESIS. Piriczki (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Secondary sources, such as Joel Whitburn's reference books, confirm the record peaked at 104. Piriczki (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC) The J. Geils Band discography discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:02 (UTC) Reason: Parties don't seem interested in Dispute resolution.
|
Talk:Chera dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The other party is not interested in Dispute Resolution on this noticeboard. The filing editor may want to see WP:DISCFAIL and follow the advice there if disruptive editing is noticed. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The issue centres around Hyper9's contention that the "Early Cheras ruled over territories territories with Early Malayalam speakers." Regardless of the fact (as evident from the other dispute resolution case currently underway) that there are two distinct theories that date the origin of the Malayalam language—one during/before the Early Cheras and another after their reign—he insists that this statement is fact and wants it note prominently in the lead and the article's infobox. But setting that aside, none of the sources he cites directly state that the Early Cheras spoke/ruled over territories with Early Malayalam. He repeatedly insists that:
I believe that this is clearly synthesis. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Also listed on the NOR noticeboard with no takers. How do you think we can help? Help decide if this is WP:SYNTH or not. Summary of dispute by Hyper9Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Chera dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:05 (UTC) Reason: No opening statement filed by the other disputant.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | None of the listed parties seem interested in dispute resolution. Please see WP:DR for alternative venues or WP:DISCFAIL if disruptive editing is noticed. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I would like the sidebar "alternative medicine and pseudo medicine" removed from this article, because these two phrase are inaccurate, biased, and damages the reputation of osteopathic medicine. Osteopathy is not alternative medicine. Doctors of osteopathic medicine do the exact same things as M.D., they get the same education, go to the same residencies, and do the same jobs. My edits have been reverted multiple times, and the person doing the reverts are not willing to take any of my suggestions, and also not giving me a reason why. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to give my reasons and started a discussion. How do you think we can help? I would like a third party to make a judgement whether the tags "alternative medicine" and "pseudo medicine" should be removed from this article. Summary of dispute by Player 03Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BonadeaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CFCFPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TylerDurden8823Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Osteopathy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 1, 2017 at 07:08 (UTC) Reason: Not interested in Dispute Resolution
|
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rijeka_City_Council#/media/File:Rijeka_city_council_09_05_2017.png){kind=link}
Talk:Shark attack_prevention
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
The issue is around the wording of two sections of the Shark attack prevention page particularly on whether to include the product "Anti-Shark 100" (an aerosol spray made from dead sharks) in the Personal shark repellents sub-section. As we cannot agree with the wording, my recommendation is to delete all reference to Anti-Shark 100. There is also an issue with the neutrality of the Shark shield sub-section, which I believe is fine / wording should be left as is.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on talk page. Requested a Third Opinion
How do you think we can help?
Help to resolve what the appropriate wording should be on the on the Personal Shark repellent and Shark Shield sections. Also Robert McClenon suggested we try "moderated dispute resolution" following Allenmt92 refusing to participate in Third Opinion.
Summary of dispute by Allenmt92
Talk:Shark attack_prevention discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The other party has been notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer note: Is the other party interested in dispute resolution? If so, please provide a summarry of the dispute above within 24 hours. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: July 3, 2017 at 07:20 (UTC) Reason: Other party not interested in dispute resolution.
Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:2017 Finsbury Park attack#Back to the original question again (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Erzan (talk · contribs)
- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs)
- Timothyjosephwood (talk · contribs)
- This is Paul (talk · contribs)
- InedibleHulk (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
2017 Finsbury Park attack is being described as a terrorist attack by arguably many if not all credible sources, users are removing reference to 'suspected terrorist attack' and suggesting sources from the BBC, UK Prime Minister, UK security forces, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Independent, London Metropolitan police and London Mayor are not enough to call this event simply a 'terror attack'. Some users have suggested it vital to wait for the trials verdict, however it has been explained by other users that the verdict of the suspect is not reliant upon whether this event is being treated as a terror attack. Many terror attacks are committed by individual/s who will never face trial for various reasons.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Provide many credible sources and suggested a compromise to change 'terror attack' to 'suspected terror attack'. Despite all credible sources provided simply referring to the event as a 'terror attack'.
How do you think we can help?
Suggest whether the sources from below are A) credible and B) allow the page to describe this event as a 'terror attack':
- The BBC ''Finsbury Park terror attack'
- The Telegraph 'Finsbury Park terror attack'
- The Independent 'Finsbury Park terror attack'
- London Metropolitian Police force 'Terrorist attack in Finsbury Park'
- The Guardian 'Finsbury Park terrorist attack'
- The Economist 'Terrorist attack at a London mosque'
- The Financial Times 'Terror attack near London mosque' Erzan (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
Summary of dispute by Timothyjosephwood
Phew. Good luck. I'm travelling and I'm definitely not going to try to hash this out via mobile, but I'll try to be around. I was playing a bit of Devils advocate, and I'm not really emotionally connected to either version. Anyway, regardless, this is an argument that can be reliably predicted to carry on for at least the next year, regardless of what version gets used in the short term. It's the same song and dance with every similar article.
There's good arguments to be had either way, and neither version is probably totally NPOV, but I'm not sure there is any obvious version that is. TimothyJosephWood 22:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by This is Paul
The original dispute was whether to repeatedly use the phrase "suspected terror attack". The phrase is used in the lede and was then subsequently referred to as the attack. It seems unnecessary to keep using the full description throughout the text. After all, the reader is likely to know what we're talking about. Another issue seems to be whether we call this a suspected terrorist or just a terrorist attack. We need to be aware this topic is currently the subject of sub judice rules under English law, since legal proceedings have been brought against the suspect. It is possible a juror at any future trial may read our article, so it's important we say nothing that could influence their opinion. This is Paul (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by InedibleHulk
"Terror attack" is a buzzword, "terrorist attack" is a crime. If the latter is said at all, it needs a "suspected" appended, or it's prejudicial. The former would imply Osborne's guilty of the crime he's charged with, strongly enough to confuse many readers, and adding a "suspected" to that is just superfluous.
It should either be called a "suspected terrorist attack" or simply an "attack". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by slatersteven
As an involved edd, just not that involved at the time of this resolution I would say the problem is one of BLP, there has been no conviction and so we are saying he committed a crime of which he has not (yet) been prosecuted. It is true it is being called a terrorist attack by many, but we cannot, we are bound to say that it is an allegation only.
Also I have only seen one source that says it was a terror attack [[11]], and it goes on to say "She made her pledge as more details emerged about the suspect in the", implying the one place they say it (in connection with what Mrs May had said) is a kind of quote.
Thus I am not sure that the media is saying this was a terrorist attack in quite an unequivocal way as the OP suggests.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Addendum.
Whilst some sources have now been presented I am still unsure about listing this as a terror attack rather then alleged terror attack. The problem is that all the sources say the accused is only the "suspect" or "allegedly" carrying out the attack. Thus we need wording that does not convey guilt. It seems it is easier and less wordy to just say "alleged Terror attack" rather then say "terror attacks whose alleged perpetrator", or some such.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again discussion
- Volunteer note: Checking pre-requisites:--
- Discussion on talk page
- Informed all parties--
(2 accounts which are memtioned here as participants in the dispute are seemingly unregistered!)
- Suitable for DRN--
. A volunteer may open the dispute after all the other parties have been informed and have filed their opening statement(s).
- Suitable for DRN--
Meanwhile, all parties should:
- Discussion on talk page
- Not edit the topic in concern (unless reverting serious vandalism or copyvio et al.).
- Stop all discussions at all other venues related to this dispute.
- Abstain from commenting on contributors in their respective statements, comment on content instead.Winged Blades Godric 12:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
| Acknowledged replies by participants. Please wait till a volunteer opens the dispute or use your summarry section. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Volunteer note: All parties have been properly informed. All those interested in dispute resolution are requested to file a summary in the respective section above. Those not interested may want to state in the summary section that they are not interested and remove their name from the list. Meanwhile, all parties are requested to follow the suggestions given by Winged Blades of Godric. A volunteer will start the case soon after all/most of the parties have responded above. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: @Yashovardhan Dhanania:--You prob.
erred
. No doubt that the user notified the two red-linked accounts about the DRN but they don't exist and are un-registered!(Thus the U2.)Winged Blades Godric 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC) - Volunteer note: --All non-volunteers, please use your own sections.Winged Blades Godric 16:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Thank you @Winged Blades of Godric: I've checked the discussion and corrected the two user names. I've also informed them on their talk pages. Note to Volunteers : when opening this dispute, you may want to collapse all these volunteer notes. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Paramount Pictures
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. This noticeboard is for issues that have already been discussed inconclusively on an article talk page. Please do not reopen this thread. If discussion at Talk:Paramount Pictures is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Until then, go to Talk:Paramount Pictures. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Nathu La_and_Cho_La_clashes#Discussion_about_improving_this_page
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes#Discussion about improving this page (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Fenal Kalundo (talk · contribs)
- Capitals00 (talk · contribs)
- 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0 (talk · contribs)
- Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs)
- Razer2115 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
- I raise concerns about some of the content in current main article which I think obviously violate the five pillars of Wikipedia. I opened a discussion and explained my rationale and gave time for editors who support current version to gather supporting sources to back current version. This goes on for few days and I found while my concerns remain unchallenged in talk page, my counterparty don't seems like to talk about content with me in talk page and wouldn't even allow me to insert tag in current article to indicate a dispute is in presence -- my edit was immediately reverted without refuting my reasons. So I conclude this discussion is going nowhere without third party's help.
- Dispute focus on two issues: first is I think irrelevant information is included in the main article without proving any supporting sources; second is I think a piece of opinion is stated as a fact and is given unduly weigh.
- My rationale is: for the first one, the topic of this page is about a "military conflict", information about "territory change" is included in section "aftermath" without providing any evidence that these two things are connected. For the second one, giving some conclusive statement in lead is a lot of credit, the sources to back it up must match this status whereas the only source to back this statement is a stand-alone statement in a book[1]. Moreover, the authors of this book writes that sources for making this statement could be "3.Author", and the theme of this book is about economics rather than history thus no further information is written in this book to back its own statement.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I try seeking help form Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in section "14. Can I conclude this source unreliable?"
How do you think we can help?
Please conclude:
1. Whether "territory change" related information should be included in the main article without any sources support the connection;
2. Is that appropriate to state this as a fact and give this the credit to be put in lead According to an independent source, the end of the conflict resulted in the defeat of Chinese military in the hands of Indian forces.
Summary of dispute by Capitals00
Summary of dispute by 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0
Summary of dispute by Adamgerber80
Summary of dispute by Razer2115
Talk:Nathu La_and_Cho_La_clashes#Discussion_about_improving_this_page discussion
- Volunteer note: While there has been adequate discussion, the parties concerned have
notbeen notified on their talk pages.Please use the template {{DRN-notice}} to notify potential participants on their talk page.All parties are requested to file a summary in the respective sections above. Meanwhile, do not edit the page in concern, stop all other discussions and only comment on the content (and not the contributor) in your summaries. Yashovardhan (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC) [edited: 09:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)]
- ^ Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.