Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
|Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread •|
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, mediation, 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. 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.
The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, whose role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. The coordinator also collects monthly metrics for the noticeboard.
|Do you need assistance?||Would you like to help?|
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page 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:
|Case||Created||Last volunteer edit||Last modified|
|Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead||In Progress||JPark99 (t)||14 days, 6 hours||Nihlus (t)||22 hours||Nihlus (t)||22 hours|
|Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks||Failed||BrightR (t)||11 days, 19 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||1 days, 12 hours||Robert McClenon (t)||1 days, 12 hours|
|Talk:Bobby Cox#Spousal_Abuse_Section_Necessary.3F.3F||Closed||Benmoreassynt (t)||2 days, 9 hours||Nihlus (t)||2 days, 9 hours||Nihlus (t)||2 days, 9 hours|
|The Shield_(professional_wrestling)||Closed||Leo0505 (t)||1 days, 3 hours||Nihlus (t)||1 days, 3 hours||Nihlus (t)||1 days, 3 hours|
|User talk:Sport and politics||Closed||Sport and politics (t)||21 hours||Nihlus (t)||20 hours||Nihlus (t)||20 hours|
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
|This page is archived by.|
- 1 Current disputes
- 1.1 Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead
- 1.1.1 Summary of dispute by Saboteurest
- 1.1.2 Summary of dispute by Alaney2k
- 1.1.3 Summary of dispute by Johnny Au
- 1.1.4 Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead discussion
- 1.2 Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks
- 1.2.1 Summary of dispute by Farcaller
- 1.2.2 Summary of dispute by CliffracerX
- 1.2.3 Summary of dispute by 18.104.22.168/Tulpabug
- 1.2.4 Talk:Tulpa#Usage of references_to_reddit_and_social_networks discussion
- 1.3 The Shield_(professional_wrestling)
- 1.4 User talk:Sport and politics
- 1.1 Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- JPark99 (talk · contribs)
- Saboteurest (talk · contribs)
- Alaney2k (talk · contribs)
- Johnny Au (talk · contribs)
- Hwy43 (talk · contribs)
Dispute over proposed changes to the lead section of the Toronto article.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Attempted a discussion on the talk page, also requested a third opinion and was directed here.
How do you think we can help?
Provide an outside, neutral opinion.
Summary of dispute by Saboteurest
My main concerns with the lead is that the language has an advertising/puffery tone and the references do not back-up the claims in the lead. I tried to tone it down to be more neutral sounding. Here are just a few examples:
- Most populous - This term is used three time in the first paragraph. I tried to combine this into one usage.
- Heavily urbanized region - Heavily urbanized to whom? Much of it looks like what most Asian countries would call the countryside. It contains some of the country's most prosperous farming land. Heavily urbanized is a big stretch. Not referenced
- An international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture - Toronto is no doubt a Canadian business centre, but International centre? It is also unreferenced. Toronto is sometimes mocked for being completely void of arts and culture, now the article is claiming it's an international centre of arts and culture. Again, not referenced.
- Recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan - Recognized by whom? Toronto is undeniably multicultural but the reference provided does not say it is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. Not referenced.
- Toronto is known for its many skyscrapers and high-rise buildings - Known by whom? Dubai and New York are known for their skyscrapers. The reference speaks about construction of condo buildings and how the future skyline could potentially appear. Nothing about Toronto being known for its skyscrapers. Not referenced
- 140 independently unique and clearly defined official neighbourhoods - Toronto's neighbourhoods aren't overly unique and most blend into each other seamlessly as the reference discusses. Again, statement not referenced.
- A prominent centre - Prominent? More puffery. Not referenced. In fact the entire last paragraph is poorly written. Most major cities are home to diverse economies. Most of that paragraph is not lead worthy and much of the facts belong in their respective sections.
- The Golden Horseshoe is an arbitrary area used by the province with many independent cities and towns which includes Toronto. I'm not sure the lead is the place to introduce this area that includes many other cities that have no connection to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saboteurest (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Also by international standards Toronto's housing is still quite affordable. According to the Telegraph it ranks 20th worldwide. Hardly lead noteworthy. But definitely worth a mention in the article somewhere. I would vote against adding this in the lead. Saboteurest (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Alaney2k
My concern is mostly that the quality of the text could be improved. I think that, mainly, having the most-populous text, etc., the positive text is normal for an article of this type. I think that it is important to be objective too and the text comes across as self-important. As someone who has visited most of Canada, lived elsewhere in Canada, I do agree that Toronto by itself is the most important city in Canada in many fields, and in some ways, (like English TV) dominates Canada, but it's not by a "country mile". Mostly, it is a fast-growing, prosperous city. It has problems - homelessness, poverty, income disparity, automobile traffic, public transit gap and I would like to see those reflected in the lead. There's a bit too much about ranking. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnny Au
Talk:Toronto#Changes to_the_First_Paragraph_of_the_Lead discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. I have added an editor. The filing party should notify the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - I have added an editor and notified non-filing participants of discussion. Nihlus 17:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - Saboteurest has not edited in over a week. If they do not respond to messages soon, we will move on. @JPark99, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: Do you feel this DR is necessary in light of Saboteurest's inactivity? If so, we can continue it; otherwise, I will close it. Feel free to respond below this message. Nihlus 21:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would like Saboteurest to have the chance to have their say. I agree fully with Alaney2k's comments in this discussion, and agree with the changes proposed. I'd like to add that the extremely high housing prices in Toronto could be reflected in the lead along with other problems the city faces, as it has created a major housing crisis. My disagreements with Saboteurest have been primarily about the removal of statistics and other data about the city, and language used to describe the city. I think it would be beneficial to keep this discussion open for one more week, to give everyone a chance to comment. JPark99 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will wait for consensus first before we decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: Although, not customary, I will keep this thread open for the next seven days to allow Saboteurest a chance to respond per the agreement of participants. The case will be on hold until then. Nihlus 02:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
@JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: I will act as the moderator in this discussion. A reminder to those involved that we all have the goal of improving the article. Please familiarize yourself with my rules; your involvement in this discussion implies your agreement to follow them. The two competing lead sentences are as follows:
- Version 1
Toronto (// ( listen), locally // ( listen)) is the most populous city in Canada and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles. Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is an international centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world.
- Version 2
Toronto (// ( listen), locally // ( listen)) is a Canadian city and the provincial capital of Ontario. With a city population of 2,731,571 and a metropolitan population of 5,928,040, it is the most populous city and metropolitan area in Canada. A global city, Toronto is a centre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural cities in the world.
Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, which version they prefer and why and, if applicable, how it aligns with the guideline WP:LEAD? As a reminder, do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Nihlus 01:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Alaney2k and Johnny Au: I'm still waiting for your comments on this. Nihlus 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Johnny Au: The consensus will be formed by the participants in this discussion. Waiting to decide after the DRN process is complete is not helpful and will only get this closed as premature. Nihlus 06:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
First statements by editors
- Version 2. It is clear, concise, and cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows as per the guidelines as version 1 does. Saboteurest (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer version 1. It provides an outline of the article with basic facts, it establishes context, and it explains the notability of the topic in summarizing the major points of the article. The first sentence clearly identifies the topic of the article, in that it is about Canada's most populous city which is also the capital city of Ontario. The second sentence provides context to the city's population as it identifies the exact population figure of the city, the year from which that population figure was obtained from the official census, and how it relates to other major cities in North America. The third sentence provides a brief factual overview of the Toronto area as a whole. The fourth sentence briefly and factually describes what Toronto is, by stating it's primary economic activity and a brief description of the people who make up the city. JPark99 (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am waiting for consensus first before I decide. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have decided to go with Version 1. It's more comprehensive. Did you know that most Wikipedia readers don't read past the lead section? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer version 2. I don't see the importance of the external regions, etc. to readers from outside Toronto. I don't see the mention of the other cities as warranted, either. Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
We've established which versions each participants favors; however, some of you didn't speak to the applicability of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The main part I am focused on is "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows." @Saboteurest and Alaney2k: Can you explain how withholding information from the reader in the lead is beneficial given that most readers won't read the entire article? Can you explain how the inclusion of the information in Version 1 is teasing the reader and isn't a concise overview of the city? @JPark99, Saboteurest, Alaney2k, and Johnny Au: The problem seems to come from the middle two sentences. If you could keep one of the two, which would it be? Would a rewording of the other one make it a better fit for the lead or should it be removed entirely?
- Line 1: With a population in 2016 of 2,731,571, it is the fourth most populous city in North America after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles.
- Line 2: Toronto is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the most populous metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada.
I think once I have the responses to these questions, I can look at a potential alternative to satisfy all parties. Nihlus 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Hwy43: Input is welcome from all editors. To answer your question, this is just for the initial paragraph in the section. Sentences that don't belong in the first paragraph could possibly be moved to the others in the lead. Nihlus 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
- May I chime in? If no please excuse as I haven’t participated in this process before. Both editors have some valid points. There is some repetition that can and should be addressed (e.g. populous) as well as some subjective rather than objective adjectives that could be struck (e.g. heavily, international, etc.). The lead doesn't need to go into details of the Golden Horseshoe or specifically list the larger cities in North America. That is what the wikilinks for the Golden Horseshoe and List of North American cities by population articles are for. Another thing that should not get lost in this is, IIRC, the lead should be able to stand on its own as a summary of the article without references. The references occur later in the article when the summarized content in the lead is mentioned. So if there is content elsewhere within the article stating Toronto is regarded as one of the more cosmopolitan cities in the world, with a proper reference to support, the statement within the lead could stay without repetition of the reference. Same applies to multicultural. I would prefer to be bold and suggest the following version 3. It answers the "what" and "where" up front, then delves into size before closing with the global city content. Previously, the "where" was a tad disjointed and missing the obvious fact that it is on the shore of Lake Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- Version 3
Toronto (// ( listen), locally // ( listen)) is the
most populous city city in Canada and the provincialcapital city of the Canadian province of Ontario. It is located within the Golden Horseshoe in Southern Ontario on the northern shore of Lake Ontario. With a population in 2016 of2,731,571 residents in 2016, it is the largest city in Canada and fourth-largest city in North America by population. after Mexico City, New York City, and Los Angeles.Also in 2016, the Toronto is the centre ofcensus metropolitan area (CMA), the majority of which is within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), had a population of 5,928,040, making it Canada’s themost populous CMA metropolitan area in Canada, and anchors the Golden Horseshoe, a heavily urbanized region that is home to 9.2 million people, or over 26% of the population of Canada. A global city, Toronto is a n internationalcentre of business, finance, arts, and culture, and is recognized as one of the most multicultural and cosmopolitan cities in the world.
- Further to the above, I seek some clarity. The lead is currently four paragraphs. Regardless of whatever version achieves consensus, are we replacing the full four paragraphs with just the one? I am not certain this lengthy article can be sufficiently summarized in just one lead paragraph of three to five sentences. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
|Closed as failed. Participation here is voluntary, and if an editor says that it has failed, it has failed. Resume discussion at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Do not use unreliable sources such as Reddit and blogs. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, the editors may make one more try at compromise via a request for formal moderation with a more experienced moderator, or may bring any specific issue to the reliable source noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard. Disruptive editing may be reported at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard, but that will eliminate any possibility of friendly or neutral resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)|
|The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page and are merely edit warring. Nihlus 01:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)|