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 |
| Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV | Resolved | Avi8tor (t) | 20 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 days, 8 hours |
| Norse Deity pages | Closed | Dots321 (t) | 13 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours |
| List of South Korean girl groups | Closed | 98Tigerius (t) | 13 days, | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 15 hours |
| Benevolent dictatorship | In Progress | Banedon (t) | 12 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 16 hours | Banedon (t) | 7 hours |
| Talk:Taylor Swift | Closed | Gsgdd (t) | 11 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 11 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 11 days, 8 hours |
| Kylie Minogue | Closed | PHShanghai (t) | 9 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 15 hours |
| African diaspora | Closed | Kyogul (t) | 6 days, 7 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 8 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 01:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed. Unfortunately, there are two problems. First, one editor has reworked the article while waiting for discussion. Maybe we need a much stronger initial statement, even before a moderator takes a case, saying not to edit the article. However, User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules, did say not to edit the article. Second, there is back-and-forth discussion. The rules also said not to do that. We already know that has not worked. Here are my suggestions as to where to go from here. First, go back to the article talk page, Talk:Whataboutism. Seek consensus before making any more bold changes. In the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, it is now time to discuss. Making significant changes to the article without discussion should at this point be considered disruptive editing, so just stop it and discuss. If any changes are proposed and discussion is inconclusive, use a Request for Comments. Also, the article is either about American politics or about the Soviet Union or both. Both topics are subject to discretionary sanctions. So avoid disruptive editing, because disruptive editing may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
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.
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 BinksternetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
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.[1] 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 MarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jack UplandThere 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 159.246.20.2Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by StickeePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk%3AWhataboutism#Statement_of_fact_in_WP_is_sourced_by_Teen_Vogue_opinion_piece discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI 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 editorsI 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:
Thanks for your consideration of my input. — JFG talk 20:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorI 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 editorsIt's hard to comment, because the article has been essentially rewritten by Sagecandor in a series of 100+ edits over the last few days.[3] No time to analyze all this now, however we should agree on article scope before further editing. My personal view is that a redirect to the appropriate section in And you are lynching negroes would be sufficient. Barring that, this article should only refer to a description of whataboutism in modern sources (post-2008), i.e. as a partisan attempt to expose Russia's excuses in their own partisan attempts to denounce US hypocrisy. Moreover, references to other uses should either be removed or not focused only on Donald Trump. Again, the tu quoque technique has been used by schoolchildren everywhere for millennia and by politicians all over the globe… — JFG talk 09:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
At this point either making the article a redirect or a short stub article makes the most sense. It's gotten so far off topic and filled with fluff there is not much to save. I largely agree with JFG on this one. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Talk:Shark attack_prevention
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as abandoned. There has been no reply within 72 hours. The parties are assumed not to be interested in moderated discussion. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. The parties are advised to avoid sharks, both living and dead, except in museums or aquariums. If there is a specific dispute, a Request for Comments may be used. If discussion is not useful, see WP:DISCFAIL. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
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 Allenmt92Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Shark attack_prevention 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 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)
- slatersteven (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 [[4]], 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)
Summary of dispute by Pincrete
I am the person who most recently removed 'suspected terrorist attack', changing it to 'attack'. My reason for doing so is because the immediately preceding two sentences (in the lead) say a) that this attack is being treated as a terrorist attack by police and b) that someone has been charged with terrorist related murder, therefore both 'suspected' and 'terrorist' are superfluous at this point. The initial para of background section had 'terrorist attack' 3 times in the text, one of which was 'suspected', making the sentence very 'clunky'. Whilst I appreciate the need for accuracy, NPOV and BLP, we need to also remember that the text should be clear and readable. May I also point out that 'terrorist attack' is not synonymous with 'terror attack', the first has precise meaning in law, the second is largely meaningless journal-ese. In this case both Finsbury and the three preceding events have all been described/treated by police/authorities as 'terrorist'. Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ... please ping if response needed.Pincrete (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:2017 Finsbury_Park_attack#Back_to_the_original_question_again discussion
| Extended content | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
- Hi, I'm Steve, one of the volunteers here at DRN. My style of mediation is a little different to some of the other users here - please do feel free to discuss in this section, though please try to keep the discussion on points and directed at me, where possible. There is precedent here on how to proceed - the first that comes to mind is the article on Osama Bin Laden, paragraph 4, who, while alive, still had the article describe him in a similar fashion to how he is described now. The article does not state that he was a terrorist, but that he was designated as a terrorist by multiple sources, and that he was indicted on terrorism charges. To be neutral here, we can attribute the content to the relevant, reliable source. So while we cannot simply describe the event as a terrorist attack or suspected terrorist attack, but we can state that the event has been described as a terrorist attack/act of terrorism by BBC, Telegraph etc. This way, we stay neutral, as we are simply quoting the relevant sources for the content. I am happy to hear your thoughts, please comment below. Steven Crossin 01:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
References
- ^ Hoontrakul, Pongsak (2014). The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics (illustrated ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. p. 37. ISBN 9781137412355.
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
Yashovardhan I think this needs to be closed quickly because the filer is currently blocked for 24 hours. He is here for editing no other article than this one and there is no "dispute" when 100/100, I mean 8/8 other editors disagree with one specific editor who is waging edit war all the time. Capitals00 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 2405:204:6400:F012:0:0:174B:D8A0
Summary of dispute by Adamgerber80
Summary of dispute by Razer2115
I am a bit suprised to be included in this dispute as I have not participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page of the concerned article. My involvement in this dispute is limited to reverting edits of User:Fenal Kalundo as he was making drastic changes to the article before building proper consensus. RazerTalk 18:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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)]- Volunteer note: When providing references using the ref tags, please use the template {{reflist-talk}} immediately preceeding the next section to avoid references from flowing to the bottom of this noticeboard. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - Discussion should not be taking place both at this notice and at the reliable source noticeboard at the same time. If the parties want to move this dispute from RSN to here, they should close the thread at RSN first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: @Capitals00: while you've raised a valid point and we can close this case now, it'll have no use if the filer comes back here and files the same dispute again after his block ends. I'd wait for his block to end and see if he raises the matter again. If not, we can easily close this dispute. I'd reiterate what Robert McClenon said. The discussion cannot continue at the RSN and here together. If the RSN discussion isn't archived within 24 hours, I'll close this dispute. However, if most of the other parties are not interested, we can even close it earlier. Also, if this case continues, we cannot discuss the conduct of the filer or any other party here. If that's the main issue, this case should be closed. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - To restate, this dispute will be closed within 24 hours unless: (1) the WP:RSN thread is closed instead, or a request is made for help in closing the RSN thread; (2) the parties at this noticeboard provide summaries above to indicate that they wish to discuss here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Dunno if I'm allowed to talk in this section, but I request help on closing my RSN. I will delete this if it is inappropriate. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - The RSN thread has been closed. Waiting for responses from the editors to see if they want moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Marsha P._Johnson
– 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
- Rebismusic (talk · contribs)
- BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs)
- FlightTime (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
"BrothaTimothy" believes that a person who self identifies as a "transvestite" cannot be "transgender woman" and refuses to acknowledge wiki definitions that support this. He erases aspects of Marsha P. Johnson's life story that support the concusion that she was transgender and tries to use "he" pronouns in certain circumstances to describe her. He ignores the opinions of those who knew Johnson and who uniformly identified her as transgender. His approach is transphobic and although he may be well meaning the overall effect is oppressive.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
i have written at length on Talk to try to explain to him some of the subtleties involved here but he is on his own wave length.
How do you think we can help?
Perhaps you could guide him towards the wiki definition of "transgender woman" and encourage him to stop removing that identifier for Marsha from the by-line. It is a painful misrepresentation of Johnson to describe her as someone who fits into the contemporary definition of a drag queen. I was trying to accommodate by leaving all the reference to her confusing self ID intact.
Summary of dispute by BrothaTimothy
Summary of dispute by FlightTime
@Rebismusic: Can you please point to all these "Wikipedia definitions" you're referring to. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Marsha P._Johnson discussion
- Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has been minimal. The editors should continue discussion on the article talk page. This thread will be neither declined nor accepted for now. It can be opened for moderated discussion if discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: @FlightTime: Please do not start a discussion here until a volunteer opens the case. I have moved your question to your summary section. You can elaborate upon the dispute there. You have also been listed as a party to the dispute and can participate in moderated discussion if and when this case is opened. The other party is requested to file a summary if interested in dispute resolution. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
User talk:LaughingAlbatross
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. The requesting editor, a new editor, made some edits to an article page, BioArt, which were reverted. The next step after an editor has had edits reverted is that they should ask on the article talk page, in this case Talk:BioArt, why their edits were reverted. This noticeboard is for use when there has been discussion on an article talk page, and the discussion has been lengthy and inconclusive. I am closing this thread to allow the requesting editor to ask why their edits were reverted at Talk:BioArt. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Madurai Airport
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. The filing editor has made a statement on the article talk page, but the other editors have not replied. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition for moderated discussion here. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If the other editors do not reply, see WP:DISCFAIL. Do not edit-war. If necessary, request page protection at WP:RFPP or report any edit-warring to WP:ANEW. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Dan Wagner#Intro
– 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
- 5.226.137.179 (talk · contribs)
- 91.102.25.125 (talk · contribs)
- 92.233.78.11 (talk · contribs)
- Ol king col (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The disagreement concerns the the statement from the article intro 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Editors claiming it should be left in there provide links to various recent publications relating to a recent commercial agreement involving the subject. I have noticed that 5 of the 6 citied articles are word for word the same, suggesting a press release/pr material was used. The sixth although not exactly the same, follows the same content and structure of the other articles and does not claim the subject is 'the founder of British eCommerce'. Agreement cannot be reached on the validity of the sources. Also, another editor has flagged it as WP:PEACOCK.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on the talk page but this article has a history of edit warring. Previously intervention and edits by senior editors has resolved this and been accepted by all other editors involved.
How do you think we can help?
Input from an editor not involved in the article is normally accepted by other editors on the page.
Summary of dispute by User: 5.226.137.179
As specified in the overview. I do not agreed with the reliability of the cited sources as they appear to be a press release. There's no evidence given to back the claim. Prior to the articles this has never been written about the subject.
Summary of dispute by User: 91.102.25.125
Summary of dispute by User: 92.233.78.117
Summary of dispute by User: Ol king col
I commented on this exact issue 27th June under the heading edits 26th June 2017, before the specific sub heading of intro was created. What I said at the time was "My view, for what it's worth, is that the line about Mr Wagner being 'the founder of British eCommerce' is that as it is sourced probably can be quoted, but as it is from one source, it does not deserve it's placing so high in the article. The introduction should be his most notable achievements which in this case must surely be the creation of MAID / Dialog, it's subsequent sale & the circumstances around it, and his recent escapades with Powa and it's administration it is what he is best known for. "the founder of British ecommerce" claim may be suitable for containment in the general body of the text, perhaps under Dialog as it's what it refers to." And that's what I still think. So broadly agree with the filing party. Ol king col (talk) 20:53, 05 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Dan Wagner#Intro discussion
- Volunteer note - There have been lengthy comments at the article talk page by the filing unregistered editor. The other editors have commented briefly. The filing party has failed to list or notify a registered editor. Waiting to see if there are any responses from the other editors, since discussion is voluntary. The filing party is asked to consider the significant benefits of creating a user account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Apologies, I missed the fourth user. I have added and notified. 5.226.137.179 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. There is already a Request for Comments pending at the article talk page. A Request for Comments takes precedence over all other forms of content dispute resolution. Editors may discuss the RFC at the article talk page. Wait for the RFC to run its 30-day course and to be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|